LECTURE 1 - Contemporary approaches in cultural sociology

Introduction to cultural sociology

Sociology of culture = specific domain of society (economy, politics, family, etc.) things that
go on in society. Looks at culture as a topic.
Cultural sociology = culture as an approach. Seen as a factor accounting for action. Culture
is an aspect of any field in society (in politics, in the economy etc.).
Sociology – refresh my memory
Sociology is the science of society. Therefore it is a science, it is systematic and
generalizing. Finding patterns that can be applied to a broader domain that you are studying.
Sociology tends to defamiliarize the familiar. We tend to forget that we are part of society, we
look more at ourselves as individuals. Sociology is much problem-oriented, phrase certain
problems in terms of problems that you have to understand that require an understanding of
how society works.
Culture in sociological history
1930 – 1960: culture was very important (most important thing you need to think about) as
part of structural functionalism.
1965 – 1980: culture discarded as part of structural functionalism (they didn’t bother about
culture anymore).
1980s – present: culture was rediscovered  ‘cultural turn’
Culture in structural functionalism
Sociology doesn’t have a single truth, they don’t know what the truth is about society.
1930s – 1960s: one way of looking at society, this was the actual truth and therefore the only
useful way to look at society  structural functionalism by Talcott Parsons.
Talcott Parsons picked bits and pieces of various aspects and blended them into his own
society. By combining all of this you could get the truth about society, a grand theory about
society.
Structural functionalism is about: context 1930s, mayor crisis (beurskrach), a lot of poverty,
inequality etc. The mayor/central question in those days was: ‘what holds society together?’:
 People behaving as they are supposed to. If you’re being rational you are also being
nice to other people according to economics. Parsons noticed this because people
constantly do things that are not rational and serving your best interest is not on
people’s mind all the time.
 So are people rational actors? No, not necessarily, no.
 In most cases it’s easier to not play by the rules and to deceive people (?)
 Not making a lot of laws makes that people are not breaking the rules and will not
take advantage of them. So Parsons idea was that people wanted to play by the rules
of themselves. They need to feel the desire to follow the rules, and they should feel
ashamed and guilt when they are not following the rules.
 Laws are not put on paper, but put in people’s mind. So, no consensus over values
and norms. (values = main things people value, find important) (norms are more
practical ways of behaving that help you achieve these values).
  this all is culture
The iron triangle
This triangle connects the main systems in society (system theory).

Social system (society needs to run smoothly. Children have to be educated, people need
clothes etc. there is a need for specific functions  structural functionalism. Society depends
on functions that have to be fulfilled.) and personality system (individuals, people have their
own desires, goals etc. ) at the base. These two systems need to be brought in line. The
cultural system is about shared values and norms. They are on the one hand the functions
and how they should be fulfilled, they give us roles (parents who take responsibility of the
children, the mother doing the child and the father doing the work), these roles are needed in
society to bring children up, you can have expectations of these roles, this makes society a
little bit predictable. Those roles can only be in place by institutionalizing them. People
should also want to fulfil these roles and play by the system. Personal level should be
adjusted to the social system.
People are socialized by these values and norms. People learn what the rules are and that
they are valuable and worth striving for (girls were told it was worthwhile to have children and
be a mother, boys had to make a living and care for their family). By internalizing these
values and norms people fell in line with the expectations of society.
However, it mainly works if you picture family’s in the 1950s. the ‘traditional’ picture. But in
the 1960’s people started to doubt these expectations, especially women, they wanted to
have a career for their own. Also black people were rallying for their rights. History showed
that Parsons wasn’t entirely right, his system started showing cracks in the 1960s his theory
was discarded and with his theory culture was also abandoned by sociologists.
Exit culture
3 main criticisms on Parsons sociology, together with critique of ‘culture as shared values’:
1. Culture was way too consensual. General agreement over values and norms, society
was looked as a unified block. But in reality there was conflict, but this wasn’t shown
in his theory.
2. The way he looked at culture was way too deterministic. It was a top-down relation.
He saw people as cultural dopes. There was no free choice anymore in their system.
But people are capable of conflict and as well socialized as parsons would want to be
3. He saw culture way too abstract, general and idealistic. How can you know what a
value is? You cannot touch or observe a value on the spot. Culture became
something of a free-floating realm of values. You couldn’t see it so you couldn’t prove
it.
Culture became something of a taboo notion because it was too vague.
The cultural turn
In the 1980’s renewed interest in culture, but with caution.. taking into account the criticisms
that were pointed into account to Parsons.
3 contemporary approaches that are influenced by criticism on Parsons:
1. More about concrete culture: manifestations, texts, stories, language, symbols art.
Things you can observe, really studying stuff you can touch and you can see what’s
going on in there rather than abstract values.
2. Location/ context where culture takes place was taken into account. Culture was
being grounded (grounding culture) rather than generalizing determinism.
3. Culture was not one shared body of values and norms, it could feed conflict and be
contradictory rather than being consensual.
Contemporary cultural sociology
Culture was no longer seen as a body of values and norms, but it was seen as meaning-
making. How does meaning-making influence the way you behave? Contemporary
sociologists look at that. It’s not about the topic or a specific domain but it’s about the way
you look at it, about meaning-making.
3 new approaches in cultural sociology:
1. Culture as cognitive structure
 culture structures the way we look at things. There are universal structures in our
way of thinking. This line of thinking comes from literary theory, (post-)structuralism
and cognitive science. This type of approach mainly uses analysis of text, tangible
objects. It’s still a structure that structures how people look at reality, but it is relatively
autonomous (and top-down). Structure vs. agency  it falls over to structure, you
cannot decide that for yourself. Idealistic = being something that is in your mind, like
parson said, they are just ideas.
2. Culture in action
 it is about culture as it is used in action, there is a mayor emphasis on agency.
How do people actively and reflexively use culture in specific situations? It’s about
using culture in practical context. It needs to take into account the context, has impact
on which cultures are used and there may be conflict between the various types of
conflicts people are using. Culture is used as a fragmentary tool-kit, it’s a bunch of
resources that you can use as it suits you.
3. Production of culture
 sociology of organizations and knowledge. It’s not about how culture structures
meaning making but its more about how it is produced, it takes a specific form. The
production of culture perspective focuses on how the content of culture is influenced
by the milieu in which it is created, distributed, evaluated, thought and preserved.
Culture is considered to be a dependent valuable. How can we account for how
cultural products are given to us.
Debates - In real life they overlap. Schema is wat links zegt over de bovenstaande stroming.
LECTURE 2 - Contemporary Approaches in Cultural Sociology, foundations of cultural
sociology
Approach 1 – culture as a cognition/structure
Culture as a cognitive structure looks at culture as a way that sort of determines the way we
look at reality and give meaning to it. Culture forms a mental structure, its inside your head.
Inspiration from sociologist Emile Durkheim.
Durkheim
To understand his sociology you have to see the time frame. Durkheim lived in a time with
social integration of modern society. Before this time people lived in rural communities (they
knew their neighbours very well). There was a lot of social control and people looked after
one another. This also had its downsides, you couldn’t step outside of your group. That
changed when industrialisation happened, they had to move to the city and couldn’t stay in
their villages. People they had known for generation were suddenly strangers.
How is society still possible in these circumstances? If they don’t feel for another how can
society integrate in these conditions? How is modern society still possible?
Learn from simple, traditional societies because modern societies are way too difficult. How
do feelings of group membership/solidarity arise? Why are there collective symbols/rituals?
Elementary forms
2 phases:
 Sacred phase: phase of special festivities and rituals
 Profane phase: people live very far apart and only with special festivities they gather
around. That is when strange rituals start to happen.
There was a lot of symbolism involved in these rituals. They would dress like an animal for
example. Big important of symbolism  totem, had a central place in these rituals. These
people looked like they were going crazy, but they just did it and couldn’t say why they did
that. They say that some kind of spirit makes them do that, the totem (special animal) makes
them do it and brings them to a different part of reality, a truer version of reality.
According to Durkheim the totem has a double function: it is treated as something that is a
sacred you have to treat it with respect or you will get punished. Animals represent the tribes.
You can identify yourself with this animal. This totem is a badge of the group, and maybe this
means that it is worship of society itself.
Sacred rituals = external force (mana) setting moral boundaries about what they could do
and what not. Its peer pressure (collective effervescence = people build up in craziness,
because they do this together, rituals are about celebrating collectivity).
But why do they need a totem to celebrate collectivity? Because the totem is highly visible
during rituals, people were dressing up like the animal. Anything that was happening was
about the totem. It’s the totem that makes you do these things, therefore it has the focus of
attention.

 Totem as focus of attention on the group itself  collective representation – symbol

of abstract group.
 Reminder of the group during profane phase  prolong feelings of belonging. (tattoos
that remind them of the group they belonged to).
 Religion is a real thing, its power comes from collectivity.
Relevance – groups and symbols
Group solidarity, the importance of flags. It’s just fabric but people invest a lot of sentiment in
that piece of fabric. Soldiers would sacrifice their live for a flag because it stands for the thing
they are fighting for, they would make the ultimate sacrifice for it.
Collective effervescence, rock and dance festival have a high sense of collective
atmosphere. People building collectiveness together. For example if there is a massive
shock through society, people get together. Restate the boundaries of their group. This is
also the respond after terrorist attacks, the events in Manchester for example. People
collectively process what they have gone through. After most of these attacks there are logos
being designed.
Relevance – civil religion
Look at nations. Build up a collective history (some figures, heroes, etc.).
Approach 2 – culture in action
Approach that says that culture is something that people can rely on to solve everyday
problems. It’s a tool to deal with everyday life  critique on Max Weber
Weber & culture in action
Relation between culture, values and action. Weber was the first sociologist who said that
action or behaviour is coming from culture.
What do we mean when we say that culture can explain certain types of action/behaviour?
Cultural explanations for action
Stereotypes:
1. Dutch people do not like to spend much money … (it’s part of their culture)
2. Working class children do not go to college … (not the way they are brought up)
3. Moroccans youths act aggressively towards authorities … (way they are raised)
4. Giving gifts for Christmas is …
 PART OF OUR/ THEIR CULTURE
This type of cultural account is a common way to explain behaviour that we see in practice.
What type of reason is behind that and how can culture motivate particular
behaviour/actions? This is what Weber tried to explain.
The spirit of capitalism
According to weber capitalism is not just a type of economy, but also a style of life. It’s the
proper way of behaving in the west. The best example of that is Benjamin Franklin.
Central values (proper way of life in the west)
 Work as an end in itself (you are not working to get rich, it’s important to do by itself.
Even if you get rich you keep on working. Work is about making a profit.)
 Profit as an indicator of personal virtue (if you are good at it you make a profit, so you
can see that you are good at it. Try to make as much profit as you can to show that
you are a good person).
 Discipline, self-control and reason (go step-by-step, work on a daily basis. Any day
you haven’t worked is a wasted day)
 Delayed gratification instead of immediate pleasure (you should wisely reinvest your
money, save for later. Luxury won’t make you happy)
This still are the core values of western society. Weber tried to find explanation for this life
style in its cultural foundations  this is the culture of Protestantism.
The protestant ethic
Doctrine that can be seen as a reaction to politicism. The doctrine of predestination.
Luther wanted to stop the corruption of the Catholic church. He started with the doctrine of
predestination. You cannot decide your own destiny or make sure that your soul will be
saved by the things that you do. You cannot be absolved by your sins. Just accept your
destiny  look for clues that you are among the chosen ones. Types of clues like being
religious or work very intensively. If you are successful in your worldly activities, you will also
be successful in the afterlife. That’s the reason why you should be working very hard.
 work hard & use your talents (Calvinism, type of Protestantism). Your talents are gifts, you
have to make the most out of it.
Weber’s model of culture and action
Culture sets the ends that people want to meet and gives the means to reach those goals.
Culture sets goals that people aspire  values. Constraints means to get there  norms.
Protestants want salvation (value) and try to reach this through ascetic life style (norm). It’s
about values and norms (last week, inspiration to Parsons conception). It’s a rational way to
deny yourself luxury if that’s what you want to obtain  salvation.
Relevance – deservingness
Still relevant today in matters of deservingness. Whether we think that people deserve their
situation.
 Example: Justin Bieber. In the beginning the was the annoying little boy but now he is
working with great artists and gets more success.
 Example ‘Voetbal Vrouwen’ are not capable of much more than being wives of
footballers. They become famous without doing anything for that.
 Example: poverty. We have these notions of deservingness. Who are the people that
deserve social benefits? Do we want to help out people who are employed or people
who are employed against their own will. Do we help immigrants or only people from
our own country?
This theory seems to fit very nicely, but there are problems with this. And these issues have
let to the culture in action approach.
Approach 3 – production of culture
Says that in any type of cultural production (whether art or other symbol that is produced by a
society) there are typical circumstances  similarities with the sociology of Bourdieu. This
approach was inspired by him.
Pierre Bourdieu
Bourdieu was not a founding father, but still one of the most important authors in sociology,
and especially in cultural sociology. He made a theory with very broad reach  accounts for
a LOT of stuff. That’s why his theory is so good. He uses a rather limited set of concepts 
habitus, capital, field. But has a very broad reach and reduces complexity. You can think of it
as a puzzle, today we look at one piece of the puzzle  field.
FIELD
Any type of activity, you can engage in. Any type of domain in society where you can be
better than others, where there is competition, there is a field. It’s about a game for being
the best or being considered the best by other people. It’s about prestige, status or
distinction. Distinguishing yourself from other people from the field. E.g. economy, schooling
system, sports, but also the arts, journalism, science, pigeon racing, comics, ... etc.
  People have an interest in it and have certain resources to perform in that field 
capital. Property that can be transformed into financial needs, or other types of
resources like skills you need to perform in a specific activity. Bourdieu calls this
cultural capital. This capital is not equally distributed across the field.
 According to how much capital they have they take position in the field. In any type of
field there is a hierarchy in positions based on capital.
 People’s activity in the field depends on their position in relation to other positions.
You can only be better, in comparison to other people. It’s about relations between
people, the things people do are defined by how they are related to other people in
the same activity (position-taking).
So, people have stakes in the field  capital. On the basis of capital  hierarchy of
positions. Preserve or improve position  position-taking
Rules of the game  DOXA. The way a field is organized by rules. If you know the rules you
are playing, otherwise not.
Dominant/legitimate capital in the field, depends on the rules (DOXA) of that field. Economic
or cultural capital  symbolic capital. It should symbolize a certain status.
Who makes the rules? They have been decided (maybe not conscious) by the top positions.
They are the most respected in the field, which means that their position gives them prestige.
But that doesn’t seem entirely fair, but society isn’t really fair is what Bourdieu notices.
Position determines strategy of position-takings:
 Top positions want to preserve position  orthodoxy – defending the doxa. They
want to keep the rules.
 Pretenders want to improve position  heterodoxy – changing the doxa. Bend the
rules so they fit their own strategy/opportunities better.
Hierarchy of fields
Society is made up of numerous fields.
 Some fields are considered more important in society at large. If you know a lot about
pigeon racing you will have a lot of respect in that field, but will be laughed at by the rest
of society. If you are good in economics you will be appreciated by society in general.
 Some forms of capital render more prestige in society at large.
But also, fields overlap, have subfields and can be more or less autonomous.
 Autonomy in relation to a field  type of capital that is used as currency in that field is
specific to the field, so criterion for distinction is specific to field. The criterion which
you will be able to distinguish yourself will be specific to that field.
 Heteronomy  capital from another field, some fields don’t have their own type of
capital, so criterion for distinction is not specific to field.
Bourdieu and the production of culture
Field of cultural production  actually 2 fields (or 2 poles within the field).
1. FIELD OF LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION
 Popular culture is produced here, culture that is popular among a lot of people.
 Rules of the market  heteronomy. It’s not about accumulating capital that is
especially about that field, it’s about economic capital, about getting rich. To
distinguish yourself you have to be challenging.
 Anyone should be able to understand what these products are about. Quality =
selling to the many uninitiated (general public)
  Short term of production. So much has to be produced that is has to be produced
constantly and people are constantly flooded with these products.
 Art is accessible to render profit
 Art is functional (decorative, entertaining, …)

2. FIELD OF RESTRICTED PRODUCTION

 It’s not about market logics, about selling but it is about denial of the market  it
is an autonomous view because it is not about the criteria but it’s about other
views.
 The criteria of this field are only restricted to this field. The doxa therefore says
that it should be about art for art’s sake. Not art for making a profit of serving a
function.
 Doxa phrased as charismatic ideology. The notion of a genius producer. You
need to have talent for this.
 The only source of quality is (innate) talent. Talented artists can make true art.
Talented critics can spot true art.
 Specialized cultural capital. You need to know what’s been done before to be
original.
 Distinction through reputation. Building a reputation is most important. And you
get a reputation by other peers who have a lot of cultural capital.
 Quality = recognition by the few initiated (peers). Other artists, critics, scholars
(‘mutual admiration societies’) offer creative interpretations, not to make work
accessible, but to legitimize its originality.
 Producers field
 Long term (consecration by education, museums, …)
 Art is original, challenging and inaccessible (otherwise not rare enough).
Dynamism
Central doxa not disputed (charismatic ideology, art for art’s sake, originality), but lower
positions want to rise. Not through imitation, but by challenging the right way to fulfil doxa
(heterodoxy).  debates over ‘true art’.
Successful? Sometimes
When art gets consecrated it becomes expensive (“sell-out”)  avant-garde takes over 
(until it is itself consecrated, and so on …).
LECTURE 3 - Contemporary approaches, culture as a cognitive structure
Culture as cognitive structure
Combination of two related traditions:
 Cognitive sociology:
Meanings are objective because they are shared by a group, they have their own
groups. We do not personally control it. Meanings resides in ‘objective’ cultural
structures, thought styles and symbolic systems. We do not have a say in how it
looks.  Durkheim  Zerubavel
 Structuralism/ structural analysis:
Meaning can be studied ‘objectively’ – it is concrete, visible and recordable in texts,
symbols, stories, objects and events. You can study that to decode the underlying
object. Meaning is relatively autonomous – has structure and logic of its own. 
Durkheim & de Saussure  Lévi Strauss
1. Cognitive sociology
In the western world we see dogs as part of a family to give love and affection. In other parts
of the world this is different (dog as food).
Durkheim origins
Systems of symbols, but more fundamentally, how do we think/categorize what we are
looking at? Where are the fundamental ‘form of thoughts’ coming from? (time, space, class,
cause, number, etc.). If we want to make sense of reality we need to make sense of these
fundamental forms of thought.
Hume – empiricist tradition: we arrive at forms of thought through experience, we see
patterns and build up a concept of these elementary things we need to know about reality.
The opposite is rationalist tradition by
Descartes: fundamental forms of thought are innate to our mind, we have no other way to
think of these forms than through the forms of thought.
Fundamental categories drive from experience, but why do all people category the same
then? But, if these things are innate to our mind, then why do we see so much variation? If
you would have had those categories from the moment you were born, you would act in a
different way like a kid.
3th alternative: Kant  truth lies in the middle. What we perceive is chaotic, there is no order
to it, if we want to make sense of it we need to make order ourselves by making categories.
So our mind orders our perception.
Durkheim (sociologization of Kant) indeed we need these frames of thought, they are given
to us by society. Society has norms and forces us to behave, act and think in a certain way.
People are forced to act by their fellow group members in a certain way.
 Causality – external force of society (normative group pressures)
 Categorization – groups within society
Durkheim – Social order affects cognitive order
Example 1: Religion is a symbol of society, so do different types of societies have different
religions?  social hierarchy is reflected in the structure of religious system.
 Tribal – no hierarchy  gods are equal
 Sedentary – more hierarchy  minor and major gods (distribution between people
having a lot of land and not so much land) (ancient Greece, a lot of gods but one
major God who was the king of the gods).
 Literate (modern organized industrialized) – much hierarchy and integration  one
omnipotent god (everyone in society depends on one another, unified whole and that
is also symbolized in religion).
The way in which society is ordered shows us how people think about things.
Example 2: Primitive classification (Durkheim & Mauss). Kinship groups (phratries) are
divided in different clans and are attributed a part of the natural universe  depending on the
clan, different things are considered sacred. Thinking of people is structured by the way they
are organized in society. Toteism is not only the grouping of men into clans according to
natural objects, but it is also a grouping of natural objects in according with social groups.
Durkheim’s structuralism
Morphology = structure of society, numbers, nature, size, arrangements of parts. Hierarchy
will have an impact on the collective conscience (= culture, volume, intensity and content of
values, beliefs and norms) and the other way around as well  cognitive structure, basic
categories of thought.
Central part: the individual mind /cognitive structure ties the entire model together.

Zerubavel
Our minds are essentially social. It’s important to look at cognition from sociology perspective
 cognitive sociology. To explain why our thinking is similar to – as well as different from –
the way other people think. The reason is that many things we do to make sense of the world
are affected by social aspects.
Social aspects of cognitive functions:
1. Perceiving
2. Mental focusing
3. Classifying
4. Assigning meaning
5. Remembering
6. Reckoning time
Socialization in particular thought communities. People who are socialized in similar ways
and therefore start to think in similar ways.
Inspired by Mannheim
We are not able to think if we cannot rely on things that have handed over to us. We cannot
talk without a language, you have not invented your own language, but you have learned a
language to explain yourself. Same is with thinking, you as an individual don’t do the
thinking, but groups have developed a particular style of thought.

Zerubavel on cognition
 Cognitive individualism. People think as individuals because they perceive individual.
 Durkheimian approach, cognitive sociology. We think as members of thought
communities. It is intersubjective, looks like objectivity but its subjectivities colliding.
 Rationalist approach: cognitive universalism. Our categories we use are part of the
human mind, we think in objective ways. Focus on what people have in common across
the world.
Example
 Cognitive individualism – subjective experience is not so important because time is
given. But we experience time very differently from one situation to the next.
 Cognitive sociology – conventional ways to express and experience time. There is a
general convention on which we agree, seconds, minutes, hours, etc.
 Cognitive universalism – natural flow of physical time.
Culture & cognition
So are there no differences? We do experience some form of cognitive pluralism. People
don’t experience in the same way, depending on the context you may be part of a different
thought community (Dutch, Rotterdammer, gamer, right-wing, etc.). Our cognitive ‘make-up’
is somewhat unique.
If you think of professional thought communities, sociologists ignore people’s eye colour.
Therefore, if you are part of this thought community you ignore that. But if you are part of the
biology thought community you look at people’s eye colour to see how they involve for
example.
The reason for cognitive pluralism is that societies specializes, different functions have to be
fulfilled. This needs different thought communities. Contemporary society focuses on
‘individually’ instead of like everyone else.
But what do all these thought communities in the end have in common?
Zerubavel & mental focusing
What enters our mind?
 Attending or mental focusing. Mentally disengaging ‘the figure’ from its surrounding
‘ground’, which we essentially ignore.
 Against bombardment of stimuli, but closes our mind as well (‘mental fences’)
 We attend and ignore as members of particular (historical) thought communities. Not
just as individuals or human beings, neither natural nor logical (‘socialization’)
Zerubavel & classifying
How we ‘carve up reality’ in categories, draw boundaries  also as social beings:
 Religion – sacred/profane – (Durkheim)
 Food – edible/inedible – culture plays a role in this (Mary Douglas)
 Psychology – sane/insane , healthy/sick – mental illness (Michel Foucault)
 Money – gift/payment – (Viviana Zelizer)
How strict are the boundaries we draw? There are different styles in cutting up the world:
 Rigid-mindedness (either/or) (this category or the other one, but always one of those).
 Flexible-mindedness (both/and) (you can be both categories, Conchita)
 Fuzzy-mindedness (no real boundaries) (you don’t make a distinction between man
and women for example).
2. Structuralism/ structural analysis
Claude Lévi-Strauss
Structuralism: French intellectual movement. Focault, Lacan, Lévi-Strauss, Barthes.
How is culture structured? Its overly complex but there are some logical relations among a
few elements and these make up culture. We can understand how culture works if we look at
the relation of these fundamental elements. Reduce surface complexity by deep simplicity.
The structural study of myth.
Lévi-Strauss’ inspirations
Durkheimian origins:
1. Durkheim’s sacred/profane as fundamental categories thought
 Lévi Strauss’ binary oppositions.
2. Durkheim’s collective conscience
 Lévi-Strauss’ collective unconsciousness (in myth).
Relation between ‘signifier’ (refers to a thing in reality) and ‘signified’ (thing in reality) is
arbitrary. There is no such things as a natural connection. Words (sings) derive meaning
from difference with other words. Language can be considered as a system for differences,
this is what makes it meaningful. (traffic light, green means drive in relation to the colour red
that means stop).

 Diachronic analysis (study of historical language)  parole (speech/talk). That is how

language works but not why it works the way it works.
 How words are related to other ones in the language, synchronic analysis (study of
ahistorical language)  langue
Structural study of myths
= study of the underlying shared logic of myths, not of the specific contents  a significant
knowledge of the unconscious attitudes of society.
Structural analysis:
 Mythemes (gross constituent units). Basic elements containing subject and function.
 How are they combined and related  structure of myth
 Synchronic and diachronic reading of the myth to uncover main underlying binary
oppositions.

 Diachronic reading – time-specific events  telling.

 Synchronic reading – timeless meaning of events  understanding.
Binary opposition: overrating of blood relations  underrating of blood relations
Why?
Type of ‘meaning’ analysis – structural analysis.
 Things don’t have a meaning by themselves, they acquire meaning in relation to other
things, the content of symbols is arbitrary.
 These relations therefore constitute symbolic systems, they study relations among
symbols. Deep structures are binary oppositions.
 You can only understand what hot or warm is when you know what coldness is, the
meaning is relational.
 Therefore you have to look for deep, underlying structures, which is simple.
Deep structures are binary oppositions - you can only understand meaning if you understand
its counterpart. Something can only be one thing by exclusion of another thing.
Cognitive sociology + structural analysis = culture as a cognitive structure
Why? More relevant applications
How (art) institutions think.
 Book publishers. ‘what kind of book is this’? Has to be put in a category to be
marketed.
 State art subsidies. “what kind of project is this? Categorization for deciding if it gets a
subsidy or not.
  Typecasting in movie industry. ‘what kind of actor are you?’. Need the right type of
actor for the right kind of movie.
 Educational systems ‘what kind of student are you?’
How can you get a feel of which types of categories are used in a certain culture, through the
structural analysis of everyday discourse. The tangible output of that culture. It’s not about
understanding what these cultural objects are about in themselves, it is about understanding
how they are structured.
Binder- frame analysis and racial rhetoric
What are frames? Ways of looking at certain events to make them relevant and make them
speak to people. It’s about attracting attention to people.
Which frames do media use?

 Schemata of interpretation that enables individuals to locate, perceive, identify and

label events they have experienced directly or indirectly.
 ‘resonate’ with broader cultural beliefs in society at large.
 Invoke ‘referent images’ to make the story convincing.
In the text
PMRC fights music  it is a treat to youth. Heavy metal and rap music are seen as
dangerous to the youth.
Heavy metal – corruption and protection frame
Referent image  ‘our own kids’, white middle-class kids.
Rap – danger to society frame
Referent image  young black urban male.
Different framing have to do with the music itself. Rap music is more graphic, heavy metal
has more metaphors. But there is also some sort of racial structure (‘racial rhetoric’). Heavy
metal is for white people, the self-group (we identify it with ourselves). Rap music is for black
people, the other group, that is a threatening for ourselves.
Culture as a cognitive structure
Meaning is not subjective, individualistic or particular. Meaning resides in ‘objective’ culture
structures, thought styles and symbolic systems. Meaning is relatively autonomous – has a
structure and logic of its own  aim is to decode the logic.
But…
If our thinking and acting is structured by structures that we don’t control, then is there still
room for agency, reflexivity and free will? Can we use culture in a specific way?
Levi-Strauss: ‘no, we have no control of it’.
Zerubavel, however: ‘we have to take into account that human beings are individuals’.
LECTURE 4 – Contemporary approaches, culture in action
Culture in action
Culture in action has an emphasis on interactions and social practices that can be seen as
meaning-making processes (not just structures in the head). These meanings can take on a
different content because it is context-dependent. The assumption that meanings and values
are entirely shared, coherent, or consistent for a given group or even an individual is relaxed.
People can have different ways of looking at reality on different times in their lives.
Individuals and groups draw fluidly on different elements in symbolic repertoires (toolkits)
according to context.
Find the differences…
Culture as a cognitive structure:
 Coherence – strong emphasis on the logic of culture
 Autonomy – internal structure of culture
 Deterministic way of looking at reality – cultural structures impel us to think in
particular ways
Culture in action:
 Fragmentation – culture as a toolkit
 Grounding – cultural meanings as grounded in practical demands of everyday life
 Agency – active, reflexive uses of culture in context
These two perspectives are opposites, each other counterparts.
Culture and action in sociology
What do we mean when we say that people do something because of their culture?  how
does culture matter? And how is it related to our actions of everyday life?
Weber looked at the Protestant and Catholics. Culture does not only define the ends towards
which action is oriented but also constraints the means to achieve them. (protestants want
salvation and adopt ascetic lifestyle to achieve this end)  action follows logically from
culture.
Problem with that?
Stereotypes that connect cultures to actions. Certain types of behaviour can be explained on
the basis of culture:
1. Dutch people do not like to spend much money  unexamined lives.
This was logical in the times of Calvinism, but now times have changed. But they are
still acting in this way, not to see if they are predestined for salvation. They just keep
on doing things because it is out of habit, unreflexively.
2. Working class children do not go to college  definition of culture.
This may be true, it has to do with the means. Culture is not just means and ends, but
also embedded in action itself. It’s not so much about values, as it is a matter of
means they have at their disposal.
3. Moroccans act aggressively towards authorities  cultural complexity.
They have their roots in the Islam, have a warrior spirit which makes them
aggressively towards authorities. But also, they don’t respect any rule that is not
Moroccan. By reducing people to only one type of culture is not good because it’s a
combination of different types of cultural impacts.
 4. Giving gifts for Christmas is  cultural distance.
Some ideas we hold ‘deeply’ and others more on the ‘surface’ – to what extent do we
try to integrate culture in our lives. Christmas is commercialized, we just do it, we hold
certain ideas with different degrees of distance on how much we hold them deer.
Critique on Weber’s general model
Culture according to Weber was considered as a coherent world view applied systematically,
rigorously and reflexively by members of homogeneous group  CULTURE IS EXTERNAL
TO ACTION. So, culture is external to us, we don’t control it ourselves, it just determines the
way we act in certain situations.
Swidler says: no this is not how culture affects our ordinary actions. If we want to know how
culture works, we have to look at our behaviour in practical situations, how it affects our
ordinary actions. See how culture plays a part in action  CULTURE IN ACTION
Culture as a toolkit/repertoire
 Culture as an equipment to act with. Capacities, practical skills, habits, lines of action
to solve practical problems (knowing how to do things). Culture enables us to deal
with this variety of situations.
 As these situations are so different, we have to look as culture as a toolkit, a bag of
tricks that can be used in different contexts. Can be inconsistent, fragmented
(different tricks for different problems).
 You can look at it as a repertoire, something you can activate when it doesn’t fit.
Some part of repertoire is second nature to us (preconscious, naturally) while others
need conscious attention (sometimes we need a lot of reflexivity).
 Culture works through cultivating skills and habits and organizing strategies of actions
depending on the situation. Based on the resources that we have.
Swidler – talk of love
Swidler tries to engage with the variation of culture in everyday life.
Larger questions of variation in use of culture:
 How much culture do people use?
 How much integrate it with their experience?
 How coherent or unified is the culture they employ?
She studies this in relation to love. We tend to think that love is a personal thing, not a social
thing. And that its part of our human nature. To look at it from a sociological viewpoint seems
a bit strange. The reason is that love is very central to our culture. People discuss their love
life with friends and relatives, are constant looking for love, consume a lot of product related
to love. Our culture is centred around love. Swidler looks at love in its most ordinary and
main way. Looks how people make meaning in relation to love. She wants to find out how
ordinary people make sense of love. What is the definition of love? When is love real? What
is the importance of love in their daily lives?
This says a lot about the culture in action approach.
Respect and autonomy are very important in having a good relationship, respect each other’s
values (autonomy discourse). When you truly love a person, you sacrifice everything
because this person is so important for you, it is a total commitment discourse.
This is a contradiction. It depends on the type of situation he is talking about which type of
discourse he will apply. He is capable of making a code switch. In the ordinary course of the
relationship it is about autonomy. In a situation of emergency, suddenly a different type of
discourse is used and he switches. People have different tools (schema’s, frames, …) to deal
with different practical situations .. even if contradictory. These contradictory frames exist
next to each other. Meaning is grounded in local context. It does depend a lot on the local
context which type is used. This is different from Lévi Strauss, who said there is one single
underlying structure.
Swidler says that switching between these frames is not entirely random. You have two types
of love:
Love myth:
 Love at first sight, love really strikes you, all things suddenly fall into place.
 There is only one true love, only one person is right for you
 Love conquers all, there is something heroic about love, love will prevail.
 Happily ever after, love is enduring and ‘fixed’
This is what you find in romantic comedies, but it is not true.
Prosaic realistic:
 Love doesn’t happen overnight, you grow on one another, it’s a steady process
 No one true love or unique other
 It is not about heroism, its more about social compatibility.
 Love does not last forever, identity or destiny is not ‘fixed’, you have to make it work.
People can grow together, but they evolve and can also grow apart again.
Even though people don’t believe this love myth, it keeps pulling them back. This has to do
with the institution of marriage according to Swidler. Marriage in its general format, of
exclusive relationships between two people. This institution acquires both of these
discourses.
Two discourses deal with two different aspects of marriage:
 Prosaic-realistic  being married – how can I make it last?
Marriage is a social institution (regulates aspects of people’s lives). Petrified culture
leads to unexamined lives (no need for myths). Once you are married to a person,
you have expectations of one another based on your expectations of marriage. It
doesn’t require much thinking anymore, it’s a steady state. You only have to respect
one another, you have to make it work but there is no need for myths anymore.
 Romantic love myth  getting married – who/why will I marry?
There are no cultural guide lines. Major turning points with individual decision. This
turning point seems rather unsettling. Unsettled lives call for more examined choices,
‘more culture’.
After people get divorced, they have to find themselves again.
Getting married YES or NO  clear-cut criteria  romantic love  marriage as structural
reality which ‘anchors’ the romantic myth (from the outside in).
Marriage as a social institution is a structural reality. It’s not something we can individually
control but it does have an impact on how we give meaning to a situation. It shapes
discourses.
Swidler – culture in action
Culture really is a toolkit according to Swidler. But there are standard practical dilemmas
which produce coherent cultural answers. Institutions also restrict patterns of action, culture
suggests options. There is a lot of fragmentation between agency and structure, but this is
not random. Social reality doesn’t structure our meaning making entirely, but it does provide
a general framework.
DeNora – music in everyday life
Focus on concrete culture (music, novels, etc.) rather than culture in the broad sense (ideas,
discourse, …)  reflexive use of culture as an equipment for living. She considers music as
a toolkit. And uses the meaning of music in practice, look what people do with music.
Music and meaning
Structuralist reading of music: music has a certain meaning, it reflects on reality.
McClary on Carmen:
 Carmen is about the body. Using dance music to visualize Carmen. She is a
passionate, sensual, but not a rational type of person. Unpredictable, evokes danger.
 Michaela  melodic, steady, no emphasis pulse. A rational, dependable, reliable girl.
The way in which the music is structured gives us information about the persons. According
to DeNora this shouldn’t be the only way to look at music. We should look at the meanings
people give to this music when they use it in practice, they can give it a personal meaning.
People appropriate music and take into account specific properties in the ordinary use of
music. They cannot entirely randomly decide how they will use a specific type of music, there
are certain properties but they can be put to use by the people who listen to this music to
give meaning to their everyday circumstances. Use music as a toolkit, it affords for different
actions, motivations, thoughts and social relations. Fast rhythm – running, slow rhythm –
walking.
Music as technology of the self
Reflexive project of the self - In modern society we have to define ourselves and decide who
we are or want to be and we use cultural objects in this project (music, clothing, books).
Cultural objects for individuals = Durkheim’s totems for tribes. (totems are used to form a
group identity, cultural objects also become a symbol of your identity).
Music affords 4 aspects of constitution of the self:
1. Cognition – How do I want to think? Self-knowledge – we know which music will work
for us and when  reflexive monitoring our own behaviour to see what music we
need (we are our own DJ’s).
2. Emotion – how do I want to feel? Reflexively switch or enhance moods through
associations, connotations, perceived parallels. You can monitor how you are feeling
by using music. Music can do this because we perceive parallels to what the music is
about and through associations we have with that music through experience.
3. Action – How do I want to act? Music makes us act in a certain way especially
dancing. But also music to focus, shut out background noise and stimuli.
4. Identity – Who do I want to be? Representation of self to others .. but also to self
(memories of important people, how you felt at certain moment, projecting image of
self) .
DeNora and meaning making
Agency:
 ‘objective’ structures do not impel us to think, feel and act in certain ways.
 People are not cultural dopes, they are active, knowledgeable and reflexive
 Structures are constraining and enabling  affording
 Self as reflexive project, self-constitution as agent
Remembering the nineties
 Popular music - those genres that strongly rely on mass media and the commercial
logic of the music industries.
 Heritage - the traditions, materials and memories that we preserve because they have
meaning to us in the present.
 Nostalgia – a positively toned evocation of a lived past in the context of some
negative feeling toward present or impending circumstances. Longing for times that
have past.
Nostalgia
The fact that nostalgia is so popular is not a good sign for our culture. Creative innovation is
hampered, because looking back keeps you from looking forward. Also it could be a sign of
creative bankruptcy, they don’t make music like that anymore. These are two negative ways
of looking at nostalgia.
Van der Hoeven had a different view. He says nostalgia is an active process of remembering
 CULTURE IN ACTION
Popular music affords …
Popular culture is a sense of self and identity, and tends to be related to a sense of place
and local identity. And then it can also evoke a feeling of cultural change and nostalgia.
Van der Hoeven asks …
How are cultural memories of the popular music of the 1990’s negotiated at dance parties
focused on that period of Dutch popular music history? How are these active processes of
remembering and engaging originated and how is meaning given to the memories that evoke
at these dance parties.
2 types of parties:
1. Remember 90s parties  decade parties.
 Parties where music is played from the nineties, where you can dance on. People
going to these parties tend to dress up as what they perceive as a typical nineties
style. It’s about having fun and parodying it.
 Reflective nostalgia  not about actually returning to the nineties but
remembering who you were and how you have involved since then. Remembering
where you came from.
2. Terror dome of the 90s  early parties.
 Hardcore music, clearly defined subculture.
 Restorative nostalgia  this is who I am. Going back to the original style.
 It’s about reconnecting with the past, really returning to who you have continued
to be at the core and returning to the true style.
Different parties for different
identities (Plaatje)

So, in conclusion: music can be used

as a device for memory retrieval. It’s
a clear illustration of how important
music can be but it has to take on a
specific shape. How do cultural
products get a particular form.
LECTURE 5 – contemporary approaches in cultural sociology, production of culture
Production of culture
Focus on the ways particular meanings, values, and artefacts are generated in particular
organizations, institutions, and networks, and how those social contexts influence emergent
meanings. This is a reaction to over-generalizations about cultural reflection of society as a
whole.
The effects of institutional circumstances and constraints on meaning making are not just
relevant to art and cultural products but applies also to more diffuse aspects of culture
(national identity, social movements, collective memory, religion, …).
The production of culture perspective focuses on how the symbolic elements of culture are
shaped by the systems within which they are created, distributed, evaluated, taught and
preserved.
 how is culture made?
Richard Peterson is the key figure in the production of culture approach. Peterson wanted to
study industries (trucking industry). Then he started to look at popular culture. The cultural
industry was forcing specific types of music to young people (especially rock music) 
corrupting commercial culture. When he started to study that, it was the other way around.
Not culture as a toolkit for practice, nor culture as a schema (frames) for meaning-making,
but culture as the dependent variable. In the other two approaches culture was an
independent variable that can explain what people do in practice. In production of culture
perspective it is about how culture is produced.
We tend to think that culture is produced by creative people, but we should also look at other
factors linked to culture: Six factors (independent variables) external to the creative act:
1. Technology-tools
2. Law and regulation-rules
3. Industry structure-how is an industry structured
4. Organizational structure-- industry's organization within
5. Occupational careers- who becomes successful/ their reward-symbolic or
material
6. Market- how to market things/ offering/catering prod for different tastes
Not a coherent theory, but an approach  producing theories of the middle range.
Six facets - examples
1. Technology
“Technology provides the tools with which people and institutions augment their abilities to
communicate, and changes in communication technology profoundly destabilize and create
new opportunities in art and culture.” Technological innovations and its meaning will have an
impact on the type of culture that is being produced.
Harrison: the role of audiocassette tapes as subcultural artifacts in underground hip hop Bay
Area. According to Harrison, vinyl records are not the dominant medium, but audiocassettes
were. Audiocassettes can be considered the core of hip hop music, they were very important
in its distribution. Then the industry discovers them and tries to make money out of them.
Commodification of hip hop in the late 1980s  subcultural revolt turned into mainstream
style. As a reaction, underground hip hop artist wanted to make clear how they were different
from the industrially produced hip hop  against professionalism (do-it-yourself, crude sound
and look). One of the ways by doing this was using audio cassettes. This leads to a
conscious embracement of antiquated technology to go back to the roots  fabricate
authentic, underground hip hop. It wasn’t just a convenient way to play hip hop, but a way to
show your culture.
2. Law and regulation
“Functions as the ground rules that shape developments in creative fields.”
Text of Leonard: progress against the law: ‘anime’ and fandom
 The role of fans – instead of large corporations – in ‘pulling’ Japanese products
(anime) to the US.
 Major role of copyright laws in the process.
1970’s – sanitizing of US cartoons created opportunity for Japanese anime in US. But there
are strong entry barriers to ‘official’ television market (Japanese companies were not able to
sell their anime)  because they couldn’t enter the market, the fans took over, fansubbing
and fan distribution  breach of copyright law. They could have attacked the fans for
copyright laws. But instead they did strategic ignorance (rather targeting major TV
syndicates). Later dismissive ignorance – Japanese given up US market.
Even though anime has become quite popular, it is because of copyright laws.
3. Industry structure
How a particular industry is structured.
Peterson & Berger looked at how an industry is structured:
 Cycles – long periods of industrial concentration and short periods of competition.
 Source – Billboard hot 100.
 Looked at how this relates to innovation  looking at the number of new artists and
new themes.
 There is a very strong inverse relation concentration and innovation.
4. Organizational structure
About how industries are organized within. Companies in the cultural industry can be
characterized in different ways: Peterson and Anand distinguish organizational forms with
different division of labour, hierarchy, flexibility:
 Bureaucracy
 Entrepreneurial firms
 Network of small firms and subdivisions. Smaller organizations can adapt easily to
new trends coming along.
Organizational form (impersonal entrepreneurial firm aiming at the mass market) vs. cultural
product (interpersonal emotions).
Hallmark wants to sell as much products as possible. But greeting cards are general motors
of emotions. Hallmark knows that people judge them, because they say they are about
people but it doesn’t look like it. So how to manage this conflict?
 Distance themselves from the market (act as if they are not in it for the money). New
ways to participate in ancient tradition (rather than ‘Hallmark holidays’). Providing
people in their needs. Consumer sovereignty  the consumers decide what they
want to consume. Do this to emphasize that they are listening to their consumers.
 Associate with high art (creativity, individuality)  putting paintings on the cards.
Showing that you are very authentic.
5. Occupational careers
Who is able to become successful? How are people rewarded (material or symbolic)?
Look at how artists develop a career to become successful in the jazz scene. To what extent
does generalism/specialism affect careers of jazz musicians? Two types of jazz artists:
1. Generalists – all type of things, jack of all trades (pro), master of none (con).
2. Specialism – specify on one thing (pro), typecasting (con).
Aesthetic generalism (has to do with genres) and technical generalism (how many
instruments can you play).
Economic success (earnings) and critical success (canonization)?
 Aesthetic generalism increases income and recognition because you master a lot of
different styles (especially for experienced players). So this one works better.
 Technical generalism decreases recognition (and more so for older players).
Virtuoso culture in jazz  you can play different genres but you have to be a specialist in
only one instrument. Otherwise you won’t get status or recognition.
6. Market
Market is divided in segments that cater for diverse tastes. Making clear how certain
products can be marketed in different ways.
Self-fulfilling prophecy = a definition of a situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the
original false conception come true.
To what extent is perceived success alone sufficient to generate continued success? If
people think that a certain song is successful, will it actually become successful?
 Web-based experiment – participants rate song on whether they would want to
download it (1-5).
 Several groups/conditions. Songs were ordered randomly and ordered by popularity
(numbers of downloads were mentioned). The higher it was rent, the more it was
downloaded.
 If people think a song is popular among other people, they start to download it
themselves as well.
 They also inverted the order, most popular became least popular and the other way
around. Songs that used to be the least popular were now downloaded the most
because they were told that they were popular.
 People do rely on what other people like and think  self-fulfilling prophecies.
Six facets – extended examples
Kosut – artification of tattoo - legitimation & artification
Legitimation:
 Long tradition in cultural sociology (Bourdieu, Dimaggio, Baumann).
 Institutional process (external effects).
 Tattoo legitimated as art – becomes recognized by museums and galleries, first as folk
art, then as professional art.
Artification:
 Newer concept than legitimation by Shapiro and Heinich.
 Process of processes (broader and more complex).
 Transformation of tattoo from non-art into art.
 Really, not so different.
Baumann on legitimation
Film as an art world – the development of audiences’ perception of film, from mere
entertainment to a genre that can be appreciated as art. Film more and more became
considered as a true from of art.
Baumann explains 3 processes that are divisive in film becoming a legitimate form of art:
1. Changing opportunity space (external to film world)
 Watch television instead of going to the cinema. Economic profit of cinema’s went
down.
 Increase in post-secondary education (status and critique). As the audience of
cinema grows in status, the cinema itself grows in status. Films could become a bit
more challenging.
2. Institutionalization of resources and practice (internal)
1. Rise in film festivals (awards were given, not on the basis of economic success, but
on the basis of highest quality).
2. Ties to universities, studies about films. Clear symbol of it being valuable.
3. Change in production system making directors more important, became the core
personnel.
3. Legitimating ideology (internal)
 Film was treated in the way that traditional arts were treated.
 Discourse in critical reviews (high art terms)
Back to tattoos – two poles

Academic turn in tattoo - Kosuth

Trained artists are increasingly moving into tattooing, as visuals artists’ chances of success
are slim, with tattooing they get economic stability and success (careers). There is something
empowering in becoming a tattoo artist and thereby rejecting the art world (autonomy). They
bring art school techniques in practice into the tattoo world  stylistic and discursive
changes.

 Creation of new design styles – new school, bio-mechanical, traditional, grey work.
 Commitment to creating tattoo art – original designs, proficiency in a wide range of
styles, familiarity with the visual art world.
Rossman – I’d like to thank …
Collaborative nature of artistic production vs. individualistic nature of most awards DeNora
and meaning making
Agency:
 ‘objective’ structures do not impel us to think, feel and act in certain ways.
  People are not cultural dopes, they are active, knowledgeable and reflexive
 Structures are constraining and enabling  affording
 Self as reflexive project, self-constitution as agent

Many artforms are produced in collaboration between various people. Art is a collective
activity, this is very clear in the film industry. Actors depend on directors, and the other way
around, camera’s, lightning, etc. But still, the prizes that are handed out have an
individualistic nature.
How does this collaborative effort shine through in the individual achievements of people
working in the industry? That is what they study.
Two most important factors:
1. Social status – has to do with how you relate to other people with whom you are
collaborating. If you’re working together with Robert DeNiro, but you are higher, will
you get an Oscar?
2. Team spillovers - if you work with other people, will that have an impact of your
personal achievements?
Social status networks, easier to get contracts
The more talent you have, the higher rewards. But status intervenes, because status is proxy
for talent.
How can you pull out the talent of one person if you are working with a lot of other people?
You need status for this. If we want to have a look at the importance of a certain actor, we
have to look at their status. How can you measure this?  billing block (reflects casting
director’s estimation of star power, but also actor’s bargaining power).
Hypothesis 1: high-status actors are more likely to be consecrated with an Oscar nomination
 CONFIMED
Team spillovers
Also has to do with the collaborative nature. People have different talents and status and this
may have an impact on achievement. They can bring out the best in their collaborators.
Talent spills over in the movie industry.
Hypothesis 2: actors who collaborate with elite peers are more likely to have their own
contributions consecrated with an Oscar nomination  CONFIRMED (especially directors).
Criticism
The bigger picture is missing a little.
Jeffrey Alexander  production of culture approach is a weak program of sociology of
culture. It doesn’t tell you what culture can do. You have to look at the impact of culture on
behaviour. In production of culture, cultural products are considered as dependent valuables,
they are not given their own capacity to influence behaviour. Where is the bigger
picture/framework? Culture strictly defined as field of arts, not a broader definition of culture
as meanings.
Response:
 Meanings within organizational contexts (DiMaggio  neo-institutional theory).
 Great inspiration for this theory was Bourdieu, he himself was not a part of the
production of culture. If production of culture people have to build in a larger
 theoretical framework they have to return to Bourdieu’s field theory. Many of the
terminology of Bourdieu are taken over by production of culture theorists.

LECTURE 6 - contemporary approaches, ‘Gendered’ culture

Recap
 Culture as a cognitive structure: an autonomous structure (with its own logic)
determining the way we think, classify, frame, …
 Culture in action: a fragmented toolkit available in practical situations
 Production of culture: shaped by the institutional circumstances in which it is
produced
The basics
We associate gender with the notion of sex. We think they are synonyms, but that’s not
entirely true. They differ:
 Sex = biological distinction, in relation to reproductive organs. Not only with human,
but also with other species.
 Gender = all the differences between the sexes that are not related to reproductive
organs. Social definition of sexes  cultural patterns of behaviour (anything that is
not biology). (clothing, appearances, etc.).
There is also a grey area, child raising for example. You don’t really know what sex is better
in that or not. Masculine vs. feminine.
Gender as a cognitive structure
Man – women  binary opposition. So how does this translate to representations of gender?
How are the sexes and genders represented in the media? How does media produce
different frames in relation to gender? They focused in particular on Amy Winehouse and
Pete Doherty. Both these people were characterized by a rock and roll lifestyle. There was
quite some media attention.
Doherty - Winehouse
To what extent do British elite newspapers frame Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty
differently in relation to their rock ‘n roll lifestyle?

 Rock ‘n Roll frames = positive frames

 Rock ‘n Roll counter frames = focuses particular on the negative side.
They looked at which proportion of the articles referred to one of these frames.
Positive about Pete Doherty, he is leading a self-destructing lifestyle but he knows what he’s
doing. Amy Winehouse on the other hand, needs to be helped because she is leading kind of
the same lifestyle. Similar things are interpret differently in line with gender.
Gender socialization
We are not born with gender, we have to learn it. The transfer from one generation to the
next of roles, cultural expectations and norms (gender), associated with the sexes
(‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’). In most cultures we see this division between the genders,
between masculinity and femininity.
Actors involved in gender socialization:
 Family (outside in)  see it as an institution on organizing life. The dominant norm,
there are some fixed expectations/roles in the family which need the role models
 (women are considered to be more capable of raising children, boys have to be
tough, etc.). (But you can also see it in toys for children)
 School (hidden curriculum)  gender socialization. Manifest curriculum, things that
you have to learn in education. But there is also a hidden curriculum, certain skills
children have to learn, discipline for example. But much of this hidden curriculum has
to do with gender, boys are not expected to write beautifully, but girls are.
 Sports  there is much emphasis on competition, displaying physical strength, this is
more towards boys. For girls it’s not so important to shine in sports.
 Popular media and culture  differences in man and women magazines for example.
Women have to be beautiful to attract a partner, boys have to be good at getting a
partner.
Doing gender (in action)
Gender is not just objective, unchanging, and trans situational, characteristic of the
individual.
People do gender, it is a practice (a performance) enacted in social relations. But the
importance of accountability towards prevailing gender order (is institutionally embedded).
Sports are a masculine thing, therefore boys have to be good at it, and as a girl you cannot
be better than a boy at football for example. So girls start to act clumsy.
Doing gender in the foodie kitchen - Crains, Johnston & Baumann
Foodies = people who are not professional, but really like cooking. People with a
longstanding passion for eating and learning about food who are not food professionals.
Food is not simply a necessity, food is aesthetics (Bourdieu).
How do foodies define the importance of food in their lives, and how (or to what extent) are
these food identities gendered/ ‘classed’?
Gender norms concerning food

Doing gender
1. Care work = women mention care work, men mention leisure  this is in line with the
gender norms. But it is manifested in a couple of ways:
 Foodie memories. Femininity and food socialization, women mainly refer to their
mothers and grandmothers.
 Protecting family health. Women are responsible for good food, eating healthy 
good food is quite expensive  therefore you need financial resources and it brings
in some kind of class.
 Cooking for others. Only women experience conflict between family and pleasure.
Men cook for themselves. Women want to explore different tastes, but they see
 how it may be too challenging for their children so they do not explore their own
foodie identity.
2. Pleasure = (live to eat instead of eat to live) characteristic of any foodie, both men and
women  this is contrary to gender norms they are redoing gender, but in a classed
way (related to socio-economic position. You need expertise and cultural capital).
3. Knowledge and expertise (learning about food) both men and – to a lesser degree –
women  this is contrary to gender norms, they are redoing gender but again in a
classed way, it is about building expertise, not everyone is capable of this, you need
some cultural capital.

Doing and re-doing gender

Foodies discourse sometimes at odds with historically dominant ways of doing gender. But
still, it is constrained by conventional gender relations  the focus on care work in particular
means that women – more than men – have to balance their foodie identity.
Gender and sports
Social marketing = one side of a contrast is given explicit value/attention  marked.
The other side is considered ‘neutral/normal’  unmarked.
Only for women associations it is useful to mention ‘women’ in the brand name. Attention is
only given to one side of the contrast, only the man get attention. There are sports for
people, and sports for women.
Finley – skating femininity-DOING GENDER IN SPORTS
Roller derby:
 Only women (not a feminized version of male sports)
 Women own, manage, operate, the field of roller derby
Gender Maneuvering = collective effort to negotiate actively the meaning and rules of gender
to redefine the hegemonic relationship between masculinity and femininity in the
normative structures of a specific context.
Relationship between genders is not just a relationship about differences. It’s also a matter of
hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy is masculinity, male is the dominant category. This
situation is/can be characterized as hegemony.
Hegemonic masculinity …
Connel (1987), Masculinities:
1. Hegemonic (tough, ‘rock star’, …)  example of what it should be like to be a man, the
essence of manliness (action movie stars, rock stars, heterosexuals). Hegemonic
dominant ideal.
2. Complicit (looking up to a tough guy)  most men don’t conform to hegemonic, they
characterize more like this one. They are not super machos but look up to this ideal.
3. Subordinate (‘not a real man’)  men that are not really considered to be a man,
because for example because they are not even heterosexual.
… and femininity
Femininities:
1. Hegemonic/ emphasized femininity  complement hegemonic masculinity (gentle,
compliant, ‘cheerleader’). It is about the counterparts of the masculine hegemonic.
2. Pariah  refuse to complement hegemonic masculinity.
 Challenge masculine dominance
 Need to be stigmatized
 Authoritarian women  bitch
  Sexually non-compliant women  slut
 Physically violent women  bad girl
3. Alternative  de-stigmatizing. You take on certain aspects of pariah femininity but try
to move the stigma from it.
Roller girl as alternative femininity
Roller girl does sort of ‘masculinity’ (pariah femininity)  girls are tough, physical aggressive,
etc. But intentionally feminized (hegemonic femininity), the girls wear short skirts, make-up,
pink shoelaces, etc. They are not just doing a sort of masculinity, but also hegemonic
femininity. They take it very seriously but do it in a fun way.
Roller girls maneuver pariah femininities into alternative femininities. Using mockery, play,
rejecting girlie girl, …  bitch becomes honoured.
Roller derby breaks free from the traditional gender roles. This is culture in action approach,
they are very knowingly structuring a new meaning of gender.
The production of gender inequality (production of culture)
In popular music (pop and rock).
 Solo artists  men and women, not one gender is overrepresented
 Rock bands  primarily only male, a few are only female.
 Mixed bands  female singer
 Mixed rock bands with female instrumentalists?  VERY VERY RARE
About that bass - Mary Ann Clawson (1999), when women play the bass
In the few cases of women instrumentalists, why are there so many bass payers? She
interviewed both male and female members of the band and listens to the explanations they
give for most female instruments playing the bass guitar.
The cognitive structure of instruments
Some instruments are considered to be more feminine, others are more masculine:
 Heavy, loud, low, big  masculine
 Light, soft, high, small  feminine
Why the bass? It is bigger than a normal guitar, it has a very low hard sound, that does not
seem like the gender roles, it is not a ‘feminine instrument’.
So why the bass?
1. Its easy  women join rock bands at later age, so they want something they can pick
up quickly. The bass is an easy instrument. (She doesn’t state why this is so).
2. !! Men are not interested in becoming bass players (and it’s good to have a women).
 Queuing theory/ empty field theory. Women take up positions when men are no longer
interested in them (occupational careers). Institutional reason why women play the bass.
This is an production of the production of culture perspective because it is about
occupational careers, female have to wait their turn until the man have made their decisions.
Essentializing the bass
A little bit of doing gender and cognitive structure to justify position after the facts.
 Bass playing can be considered as the emotion work.
 The guitar takes the lead (individual)  masculine.
 The bass offers support (group)  feminine. (lifting the music to a higher level).
 Feel the rhythm
 The guitar is about the mind  masculine
  The bass is about rhythm/body  feminine (but why are most DJ’s male then?
Because that is all about dancing, in the case of DJ’ing it’s a more masculine
thing.)
It’s not only about production of culture, but also about cognitive structure. It is about doing
gender as well  culture in action.
LECTURE 7 - Contemporary approaches, Race/ ethnicity in culture
Again, the basics
Race is a classification based on biology, physical features (skin colour, hair, facial features,
etc.). The counter part of sex. They are inherited features, people have no control over them.
Classifying average features, but averages of what? When taking an average you first have
to define the group and define humanity into races. Categorizing people on their skin colour.
Even though the classification of people is based on biological/physical features, this doesn’t
mean that it’s also a biological thing.
Ethnicity is categorizing people based on cultural traits (language, religion, origin, etc.). This
is learned and often self-conscious identity. It’s a way to identify yourself.
Both race and ethnicity are constructed socially (socio-cultural categories with real
consequences). Both race and ethnicity are about drawing boundaries (‘us versus them’).
Both categorizations come down to differentiating people from one another.
Race in the United States
 History of slavery  1776 – 1865. This is misleading, it has already been going on
hundreds years before 1776. This system was abolished in 1865.
 After the abolishment racial discrimination became something of a framework. People
were allowed to differentiate on race. Different facilities for white and black people.
These are Jim Crow laws, minstrelsy = popular form of entertainment to dress up as
black people. Jim Crow was a prominent character in this.
 In this time also a counter movement started to develop, black people started to protest
for equal rights  NAACP. Central figures in this are Martin Luther king and Rosa
Parks. This was from 1877 – mid 1960’s.
 1964 the Civil Rights Act was made, discrimination wasn’t allowed for the law anymore.
 Persistent racial inequality/segregation. In housing, education, (inter-)marriages, cultural
expressions. Black and white neighbourhoods, schools, etc.
Race in practice but cognitively structured - Hancock (2008), put a little colour on that!
How race is performed in practice, how it is structured. Top entertainers in the US are black
cultural figures and central to American culture. How is it that African American culture
continues to be symbolically central in American society, while African Americans remain
economically and politically marginalized?
Social marking
= when you have a certain contrast (binary oppositions), where only one side of the contrast
is given specific value. Thereby turning the other side of the contrast (unmarked side) in a
neutral category. Whites=just humans, others=raced

 Unmarked  whiteness is often seen as an unmarked category. The side of the

contrast which is ignored as being normal, neutral or unproblematic.
 Marked  blackness is often seen as a marked category. The side of a contrast
explicitly mentioned, given positive or negative value.
In rap the unmarked category is black. Rappers are by definition black, only when they are
white its worth mentioning their race. “Eminem is a good rapper, despite the fact that he’s
white”. Marking in a positive way. “He is a bad rapper because he is too white”. Marking in a
negative way.
Marketing is to some extent also context dependent.
Colour-blind ideology (as an alternative to discrimination (at least legally))
This ideology says that race doesn’t matter. But race is actually often taken into account.
This ideology has become a dominant ideology since discriminating is not allowed anymore.
Ideology emphasizing essential sameness between racial and ethnic groups despite unequal
social locations and distinctive histories.
 Abstract liberalism (opportunity has no colour), if you want to be successful you have to
work hard for yourself.
 Biologization of culture (blacks have more rhythm), biological differences between the
races.
 Naturalizing of racial matters (the way things are), some things are normal and we
cannot do so much about them. It’s about taking out responsibility on a societal level, by
turning it in a problem that you cannot control so you just have to accept.
 Avoiding race-related remarks (…), it’s not relevant so we shouldn’t talk about race.
This is what is going on in a large part of western Europe.
They are not bad, but they recognize that there are differences between people. By stressing
biological differences the responsibility is taken away. It is a very white way of looking at
reality, it presumes a form of marking, takes the white perspective, other people just have to
adapt to that.
Colour-blind ideology unconsciously constructs whiteness as the default (normal or
unmarked) category, hiding existing structural inequality.
Racism
An attitude or theory that some human groups, socially defined by biological descent and
physical appearance, were superior or inferior to other groups in physical, intellectual,
cultural, or moral properties (and currently also about ethnicity).

 Individual racism = an attitude, a prejudice, a theory. In short, an ideational system held

in individual human minds.
 Institutional racism = racism embedded in the institutions and structures of social life,
continues to operate even without active support and maintenance of individuals.
o Direct  apartheid, Jim Crow (you have to act according to the law)
o Indirect  structures with impacts that differ along racial lines (not about people
being actively racist, it just happens in the way that people deal with things).
Hancock on the Lindy Hop
The Lindy Hop as a traditional black cultural expression. Mainly African Americans were
engaging in this type of dancing. After a couple of decades they lose popularity, by the
1950’s it was not so popular anymore, people lost the interest in it. When the Lindy Hop was
revived, it was mainly white people doing this dance. Shift from being ‘black’ to ‘white’.
What do participants themselves have to say about racial dynamics they participate in?
Focus on racial domination without racism:
 No strategic rationalization
 No manipulation
 symbolic violence (Bourdieu)
Marking white identity
In two ways:
1. Celebrating African American talents.
“Black people are just better dancers than whites are.”
2. Mocking or denigrating whiteness.
“I can’t get this. I’m so white.”
In both cases they are biologizing things that are actually cultural. By turning this into a
biological thing, the tradition is hidden and no longer recognized. No recognition of racial
politics of cross-cultural consumption of different racial groups. These people don’t want to
think in terms of the Lindy Hop in African American cultural heritage. Rather, essentialize and
re-inscribe racial stereotypes.
Blaming the victim
Its certain individuals that choose to do a certain dance, it is their individual choice. But the
fact that the Lindy Hop was a black thing when it started and in the 90’s it was a white thing
shows that it is a race thing. There is a racial structure underlying this dance. By putting this
as an individual choice. “if black people want to do that, what is stopping them?”
Form of abstract liberalism, wrongfully assuming that people (of different racial groups) have
equal opportunities. Race is seen as an individual choice.
Talking around race
Example of avoiding race-related remarks:
 Decontextualizes and deracializes the Lindy Hop severing it from its African
American origins.
 Prevents full cross-cultural understanding.
Having fun
It’s ''just about having fun''. This is related to not talking about race in this object. If you are
going to talk about race it is turning into a political thing and that ruins the fun. It is indeed
black culture and we can take it over as long as it’s fun.
4 discourses…
Serve as mechanisms of racial domination by decontextualizing and dehistoricizing the Lindy
Hop from its African American origins  symbolic violence = the dominant vision of the world
that is accepted. The vision of reality that serves the interest of the dominant group that
makes it able for all groups.
Lindy Hop is no longer an African American thing, it is just ‘a thing’ that you can do. Not
linked to race.
The way people conceptualize the world are embedded in larger racial ideologies. Discourse
often contrary to intentions and desires. Race relations dominate white themselves (‘culture
as a cognitive structure’).
Race as a cognitive structure in the production of culture - Mears (2010), size zero
high-end ethnic
How do fashion bookers define ‘beauty’ – size and ethnicity – and why is this definition so
narrow?
Her approach towards this is production of culture, she pays a lot of attention to markets and
the differences between them (editorial vs. commercial). This leans heavily on Bourdieu’s
insights. She also talks about demand uncertainty (conventions, imitation, stereotypes).
Très production of culture, but …
Modelling, professionalization of a certain way of ‘doing gender’  size zero/ white.
How are these images produced? How are models selected by model agencies? Culture as
a cognitive structure is important in this.
Bourdieu’s fields of cultural production
Models are screened for two different markets:
 Large scale production. Focus on profit (economic capital), targeted at consumers 
heteronomous pole (takes into account criteria that are alienate to the market as well).
 Restricted production. Focus on prestige (symbolic capital), targeted at other producers
 autonomous pole (about what makes this type of cultural production unique).
So fashion modelling fields

Diversity in ‘the looks’

Commercial models – more diverse in size and ethnicity:
 Basic marketing considerations and to reach target audiences (demographics).
 Aiming to please clients (attainable beauty).
Editorial models – slimmer, younger, white:
 This has to do with the restricted field of production
 More risky, uncertain market and therefore stronger hold of conventions
 Size zero is based on aristocratic ideal of slenderness, whiteness and ‘sexual
unavailability’
 cognitive structure. White = unavailable. Black = sexually available.
Ethnic classification in the production of culture - Berkers, Janssen & Verboord
(2014), assimilation into the literary mainstream?
1. To what extent have US, Dutch and German literary critics drawn ethnic boundaries
in their reviews of ethnic minority authors between 1983 and 2009?
2. To what extent have such ethnic classifications by critics changed in each country in
the course of ethnic minority writers’ careers and across time?
Boundary change
Ethnic classification may no longer fit:
 Boundary crossing (individual author crosses an ethnic boundary which first was
relevant and now not anymore, these people are individually assimilated in the
mainstream).
 Boundary shifting (not an individual thing, happens to a group. If a certain ethnic
boundary is no longer relevant over time, the boundary shifts).
Why should reviewers use these ethnic boundaries? Because it’s so easy to talk about
ethnicity. If you mention that an author is of an ethnic minority you are already filling your
text. It is relevant because of two reasons that ethnic classifications are easily accessible:
1. Situationally accessible  direct contact, active suggestion, and cues in the
environment (contents & book cover). When a publisher decides to mention on a
cover of a book that an author belongs to an ethnic minority.
2. Chronically accessible  they are frequently activated or cognitively linked to other
widely used categories (national repertoire). In some countries it’s more important
that you belong to a minority than in others, this depends on the situation.
Ethnic minority background labels
 Direct references to the author’s ethnic group membership – ‘Türkischen Autor’
 Mentions of the author’s descent or country of birth – ‘of Moroccan origin’
 Explicit links of the author’s ethnic background to features of the story – ‘numerous
works written from the perspective of either the second- or third generation Chicano’.
These differences are not significant or important, they are incidental.
Boundary change
Only the numbers indicated by stars are important, the others are not reliable. Situational
cues have no impact on the fact that a reviewer will talk about the ethnic background of the
author.
ARTICLE
-Only for their first book there is mentioned that they are from a different ethnic majority in the
US.
- In the Netherlands it is mentioned more often that an author is from a different ethnic
background, but this was in the earlier years and not so much anymore nowadays.
-In Germany it is a negative effect, it is mentioned less often in their first book, more often in
their second or third book.
Ethnic boundaries are used different in different context.
Interpretation
US: weak ethnic boundaries and mainly mentioned on individual-level assimilation (boundary
crossing, individual authors cross over the ethnic boundaries, firs they are an ethnic minority,
then it is no longer relevant). It’s not seen as something of an individual characteristic, it is
mainly considered an ethno-racial insider. They are very much seen as representatives of a
certain ethnic group.
Netherlands: we see strong ethnic boundaries and group level assimilation (boundary
shifting, in earlier years it was mentioned more often that authors belonged to an ethnic
minority but now not so much anymore, this belongs to an entire group). The reason for this
may be the effect of a hype, it was something of a thing to be an author of an ethnic minority,
then people got used to it, became less relevant, the hype went off and it was no longer
mentioned.
Germany: strong ethnic boundaries and (individual-level) ethnicization. First, they are
considered to belong to the literary majority, from their second work onward they belong to
an ethnic minority. Authors increasingly come to be considered as belonging to an ethnic
minority. In Germany authors had no option to become part of the majority. They will never
be considered of the German literary mainstream, they are essential foreigners. Even though
you are born in Germany, if you have an ethnic origin you will be treated as a foreigner.
You can also consider this study as a frame analysis. You see something of culture as a
cognitive structure here as well.
LECTURE 8 - contemporary approaches, Nations and culture
Cross-national comparisons – why?
Main background variables in social world (race, gender, nation). People are born in a certain
country and on the basis of that they have a certain nationality. It is ascribed and you are not
born with it. The risk of looking at nationality is that we are not even being aware of being in a
specific context. We tend to forget that these causes that all happen take place against a
national background. This lies at the core of ethnocentrism, taking your own nation as the
standard.
National contexts are considered to be important, but own context is often taken for granted
(unmarked). To understand how one’s national context impacts culture  compare it to
different contexts because cross-national comparison de-familiarizes the familiar. They make
clear that things we take for granted are not so normal.
National differences
Essentialism = an ‘essence’ of values and ideas pertaining to and typical for people living in
a particular nation (= national identity).
With Durkheim we know that it makes sense to talk about national identity. But he defines it
not so much at similarities between people, but more that people have we-feelings, totems
and special symbols. Talking about national identity in essentialism is quite problematic,
often it takes a turn of psychologism.
Psychologism = personality traits common (or more prevalent) among people living in a
particular nation (repressed English, rigid Germans, permissive French), these are
stereotypes/caricatures. These psychologism’s tend to sketch an image that is not so close
to reality.
But there are some similarities between people living in a certain country. We can make
sense of that by switching to the notion of national repertoires.
National repertoires
Michèle Lamont: there are many possibilities to solve practical problems. Culture as a toolkit
or repertoire (Swidler – culture in action). There still are various possibilities to solve these
cases. But some possibilities are more likely because of historical trajectories and
institutional structures.
Nations differ through the symbolic boundaries they draw.
 national classification system/ boundary patterns
This work was inspired by empirical and inductive studies on boundary work in different
national contexts (France and USA). Compare how these repertoires change.
Who are ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ people? Who are your friends? Who do you respect? Who
do you look down upon? Who are your heroes?
The way that people draw boundaries between worthy and unworthy people tends to be
different in different contexts. French and American men use different criteria to define
worthiness: for example moral boundaries and socioeconomic boundaries are more
important in America, while cultural boundaries are more important in France.

Boundaries

Impact of structural features

 Education
o USA  more a fact-based expertise
o France  about general culture.
 Religion:
o USA  more Protestantism strong imperatives.
o France  more Catholic  laïcité, not so religious, therefore less emphasis on
traditional norms.
 Geographical and social mobility:
o USA  people are more mobile  move around more in geographical term and on
the social ladder. Not something you can rely on because family is not determent in
their social status. Therefore there is an emphasis on the individual trustworthiness.
o France  people stick to their social position and don’t move so much, are more
hierarchical. More focus on social background and this becomes a stable factor.
National repertoires in the production of culture - Daniel Weber (2000), symbolic
boundaries in French and American book publishing
How do book publishers in the USA and France define ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ books,
authors, genres and general cultural tendencies.
How can possible differences be explained by:
 Differences in historical/institutional structures of publishing
 National cultural frameworks
There are explanations on the field level and on more general national frameworks.
Similarities in field of book publishing
Both France and the US are similar in how publishing is organized in general.

Differences in field of book publishing

The field is geographically organized:
France
Geography Concentrated (Paris)
Retail Independent booksellers
They decide themselves
what they want to sell.
Professional Publishers/authors
organization Direct contact
USA
Diffused (university presses)
Literary publishing is all over the country
Chain retailers
Centrally organized, they decide the
publishing.
Literary agents (gatekeepers)
Professionalization of cultural industry,
agents try to sell books of authors to
publishers.

Differences in symbolic boundaries - France

French publishers/ editors  vertical classification:
 Differences in prestige between worthy literature and commercial books
 This distinction is not only held up by literary- but also by commercial publishers.
 Literary and commercial publishers invoke hierarchical distinctions
 Literary editors fear collapse of hierarchy due to Americanisation
 New authors or genres are place within literary tradition
Differences in symbolic boundaries - America
American publishers/editors  horizontal classification:
 Commercial – fit with bookselling category (no good or bad books, just different)
 Scholarly university presses – academic disciplines, feminist studies, ethnic studies…
 Market defines the symbolic order of literature (a book that adapts to the market is
legitimate in its own right).
So, differences in symbolic boundaries
 France there is a strict division between good and commercial books.
 USA these two categories collide, appeal to the market is a salient and taken-for-granted
element in the American definition of cultural value. The main criteria is whether people
are interested in it.
The cultural value that is assigned to a literary product in the USA is identified by commercial
standards by the market  Two different cultural logics or national cultural repertoires.
Explanation – field
Structure of book publishing:
 Marketing for chain retail (USA)
 Concentration leads to strong boundaries (France)
History of literary field:
 Relation with social elites, state regulation (France)
 Decentralized production, broad, heterogeneous public, no state intervention (USA)
The fields have developed differently in these countries:
France  competition. You have to specialize for a special niche market. Symbolic
boundaries are more important because of competition. Strong relation with social elite. It is
taken away from the market, being protected. State regulation is so important because you
cannot let something as important as literature be decided by the market.
In the USA there are chain retailers. Different because it is up to the people whether they
want to buy a book or not. The free market is much more important, demand and supply will
decide what is a good book. The production is decentralized and the public is
heterogeneous, so is becomes very hard to sustain one kind of symbolic boundary. Because
this cannot be upheld, different audiences want different books.
Explanation - nation
 More cultural hierarchy  cultural capital is more important in France. This type of worthy
culture is one of the primary criteria to establish social hierarchy.
 In the USA this isn’t possible because there is so much social diversity (ethnic/ racial/
regional) which undermines symbolic boundaries.
 In general in the USA the market is given more power and there is less state support 
commercial criteria are very important.
 Different educational organization: USA  decentralized, France  centralized.
France is more hierarchical in cultural capital. It is considered to be more important. You
have a worthy culture, a ‘refined’ culture. And that decides social hierarchy.
Cognitive structures to national repertoires in action - Amy Schalet (2000), raging
hormones, regulated love
How do American and Dutch parents define and manage adolescent sexuality?
What are the underlying ‘cultural logics’ (or repertoires)?
Defining adolescent sexuality
In the USA there is a dramatization of adolescent sexuality.
 Biologically driven (‘hormones’) with disruptive powers. It’s very dangerous because
they go a little bit crazy, they don’t know how to deal with it themselves because they
are not mature enough to have a love relationship.
 Adolescents are not capable of restraint long term relationships.
In the Netherlands there is a normalization of adolescent sexuality
 It’s not a problem in itself, but you have to deal with it properly otherwise it will become
a problem.
 Adolescents are capable of restraint, serious relationships and determining whether
they are ready for having sex or not.
Managing adolescent sexuality
USA  against teenage sexuality in the family
 Inevitability of conflict over teenage sex
 Vertical parental authority (however, symbolic)
 Adolescent sexuality violates integrity and therefore kept outside the family (‘not under
my roof’).
Netherlands  taking teenage sexuality into account
 Talk about it instead of preventing it, because you know it will happen eventually
 Teenage sex inevitable, rather prevent from becoming a problem (pragmatic reaction)
 Horizontal parental authority (mutual consideration – afspraken)
 Secrets about sexuality violate unity of the family (gezelligheid).
Explanation
Different cultural logics: structures of interdependent meaning which constrain and enable
people’s thinking and action in systematic ways.

3 dimensions:
1. Conflict/compatibility of people. In the USA they are more conflict based.
2. Degree of self-restraint. In the Netherlands they thing that adolescents have more
self-restraint.
3. Types of power.
Structural and historical features of nations. Similar findings with regard to organization of
public schools, public space and immigration policies. They all bare the same traces of
dealing with people in a particular way.
National habitus
Alternative to national repertoires. Inspired by Bourdieu, but mostly Norbert Elias.
 Learned practices and standards that have become so much part of ourselves that they
feel self-evident and natural. This becomes a second nature – ‘the way we do things’.
 It becomes embodied history which is the ground-tone of our individual history. A
national history/habitus. It’s not a conscious lifestyle, but an unreflexive habit.
There is a sense of culture in action here, but it is more about cognitive structure because
people are not aware of this.
An illustration of national habitus – Kuipers, the rise and decline of national habitus.
Why are things different and why do people behave differently on the other side of the
national border? How can this be explained sociologically?
Many of these differences do not have to do with state intervention, they develop
automatically. This can be explained by the forming of a national habitus. Shaping and
decline of the national habitus. In the Netherlands we see a lot of bicycles (cycling culture).
Rise of the national habitus
1. Increasing interdependence.
First people lived in villages, very small. After a few decades people started to get in
touch with other villages. Then slowly they became part of larger social units  they
became more aware of others  general identification  adaptation.
2. Intensification of interdependencies and proliferation of national institutions.
Education is important here, national institutions started to develop. Education is
standard across the nation, it reproduces inequality but it also puts people through a
standard mall and makes them more similar.
3. Vertical diffusion of standards and practices.
‘Trickle down’ (anticipatory socialization  looking up to elites and taking over their
characteristics to level up on the social ladder).
4. Growing national identifications
People identify more with those that are similar  ‘we-feelings’
Bicycle as part of the national habitus
 The Netherlands are a highly integrated country, very homogeneous, and small power
distances between classes. It has a rather egalitarian society.
 Little ostentatious status display but conspicuous non-consumption, not showing that you
are very wealthy.
 Bicycle fits with this soberly, it is a cheap and simple means of transportation. You have
to put some effort in it yourself.
 This gives distinction through simplicity.
 became part of the Dutch national habitus.

Decline of the national habitus

Diminishing national dependencies as a result of globalization.
Vertical diffusion (‘trickle down’) slows down:
 People resist the notion that some standards and practices are better or ‘higher’ than
others
 Upward social mobility and informalization. You just have to act normal, its more
about being authentic instead of acting right.
 Egalitarianism: becoming more important, it is no longer accepted that there are
elites, everyone is equal or should be equal and all tastes and preferences should be
equal. There still are status symbols but they are more subtle.
Growing distance and avoidance between social strata: higher (cosmopolitans)  lower
(locals). Social classes are drifting apart.
Increasing diversity
So the bicycle…
 Increasingly classed pattern where highly educated cycle, while less educated take the
car or scooter.
 Increasingly part of a cosmopolitan lifestyle of the creative class, it becomes a sort of
status symbol and a lifestyle.
 Cycling changed from an unself-conscious habit to a self-conscious lifestyle.
 Scooters as a symbol of ‘the other’.
National repertoire versus habitus
Similarities:
 Focus on cognition and thought communities (how people look at reality)
 Emphasis on habits and practices (how people deal with situations)
 Social structures and historical trajectories
Differences:
 Different theoretical origin (Swidler vs. Elias/Bourdieu)
 National habitus leaves less room for agency ‘embodied’ second nature, automatic
unconscious reactions, not so much room for agency
 Repertoires suggest some – limited options – to solve practical problems. Its more
about agency and culture in action (using culture as a toolkit).