culture in sociology essay

Culture in Sociology (Definition, Types and Features)

Culture, as used in sociology, is the “way of life” of a particular group of people: their values, beliefs, norms, etc.

Think of a typical day in your life. You wake up, get ready, and then leave for school or work. Once the day is over, you probably spend your time with family/friends or pursue your hobbies.

Almost every aspect of this—your means of travel, how you behave among your colleagues, or what kind of recreation you prefer—comes under culture. It is something that we acquire socially and plays a huge role in shaping who we are.

Sociologists have come up with various theories about culture (why it exists, how it functions, etc.), which we will discuss later. But before that, let us learn about the concept in more detail and look at some examples.

Sociological Definition of Culture

Edward Tylor defined culture as

“that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” (1871)

Another definition comes from Scott, who sees culture as “all that in human society which is socially rather than biologically transmitted” (2014).

Since the beginning of civilization, humans have lived together in communities and developed common ways of dealing with life (acquiring food, raising children, etc.). These common ways are what make culture.

Culture consists of both intangible and tangible things. The former is known as nonmaterial culture, which includes things like ideas or values of a society. In contrast, material culture has a physical existence, such as a clothing item.

Both nonmaterial and material are linked because physical items often symbolize cultural ideas (Little, 2016). For example, you wear a suit (not a pair of shorts) to a business meeting, which is linked to the workplace values of formality & decorum.

Two of the most important elements of culture are its values & beliefs. Values refer to what a society considers good and just: individuality, for example, is a key value in most Western countries. Beliefs are the convictions that people hold to be true, such as the American belief that hard work can make anybody successful.

Values and beliefs are deeply entrenched in a culture, and going against them can have consequences. These can range from minor cultural sanctions (say being frowned upon) to major legal actions. In contrast, upholding values & beliefs leads to social approval.

Cultural values differ across cultures. The individualism of Western cultures seems solipsistic & arrogant to many Non-Western cultures, who instead value collectivism. Besides such variations, values also evolve with time.

Culture vs Society

The terms “culture” and “society” are often used interchangeably in everyday speech, but they refer to different things.

Society refers to a group of people who live together in a common territory & share a culture. This common territory can be any definable region, say a small neighborhood or a large country.

When we use the term “society”, we are referring to social structures & their organization.

Culture, in contrast, is the “way of life” of a group of people; it consists of values, beliefs, and artifacts.

For example, in the United States, African-Americans have historically been oppressed, and even today, they often do not get equal opportunities. Here, we are talking about social structures, which include race and class.

African-American culture has—such as the literary works of Zora Neale Hurston or the jazz music of Duke Ellington—developed in response to these (unfair) social structures. So, both society & culture are mutually connected; neither can exist without the other.

Features of Cultures

The following are 10 key features of culture that we explore in sociology:

Symbols: Symbols can be words, gestures, or objects that carry particular meanings recognized by those who share the same culture. For instance, the bald eagle functions as a symbol of freedom and authority in American culture .
Language: Language is a key aspect of culture, as it is the means of communication that conveys cultural heritage and values. For example, the French language, rich in literature and philosophy, reveals much about French culture’s emphasis on art, intellect, and romance.
Rituals and Traditions: These are practices or ceremonies that are regularly performed in a culture and bear symbolic meaning. An example of a ritual would be Diwali, the festival of lights celebrated by Hindus, symbolizes the spiritual victory of light over darkness, good over evil.
Norms: Norms are behavioral standards and expectations that culture sets. In British culture, for instance, queueing is a significant societal norm, signifying order and fairness. See: cultural norms .
Values: These are the learned beliefs that guide individual and collective behavior and decisions, such as respect for human rights evident in many democratic societies. See: cultural values .
Social Structures: Social structures are the arranged relationships and patterned interactions between members of a culture, like the extended family system prevalent in many Latin American cultures.
Artifacts: Physical objects or architectural structures that represent cultural accomplishments, such as the Pyramids in Egypt representing ancient Egyptian civilization. See: cultural artifacts .
Rules and Laws: Codified principles that guide societal behavior. For example, the constitution in the U.S. reflects its cultural emphasis on democracy and individual freedom.
Religion and Spirituality: Beliefs about a higher power, rituals related to this belief, and moral codes derived from these beliefs. Buddhism, for instance, is a significant part of East Asian cultures.
Food and Diet: Specific to each culture, these are dietary habits and special cuisines, like the Mediterranean diet filled with seafood, olives, and vegetables, reflecting coastal cultures of Greece and Italy.

Types of Culture in Sociology

National Culture: This represents the shared customs, behaviors, and artifacts that characterize a nation, for instance, the Brazilian culture marked by energetic music and vibrant festivals.
Subculture : A cultural group existing within larger cultures distinguished by their unique practices and beliefs. For example, The Amish in the United States have a distinct lifestyle centered around simplicity and community.
Counterculture : This represents groups that reject mainstream norms and values, seeking to challenge the status quo. The Punk movement of the 1970s in the UK, known for its rebellious attitudes and alternative fashion, is a clear example. Countercultures often cause widespread moral panic among the dominant culture in a society .
Folk Culture : Traditional, community-based customs representing the shared cultural heritage, such as folk music and folklore of Irish culture.
Pop Culture : Mainstream trends influenced by mass media, fashion, and celebrities, like K-Pop’s influence on global music and fashion trends.
High Culture : Artifacts and activities considered ‘refined’ or ‘sophisticated’ by elite society, such as opera and ballet in European cultures (Bourdieu, 2010). This is contrasted to low culture , which represents the culture of the working-class.
Material Culture : Tangible artifacts of human society like architecture, fashion, or food. The medieval castles peppered throughout France offer insight into its material culture. This is of great concern, for example, to archaeologists.
Non-Material Culture : Intangible aspects of a culture, such as values and norms. The continued emphasis on politeness in British culture is an example of this. This is of great concern, for example, to sociocultural anthropologists.
Professional Culture: Standards and behaviors specific to a particular profession. The Hippocratic Oath and an emphasis on patient care are integral to medical culture.
Organizational Culture: Refers to the shared values, beliefs, and behaviors that form the unique social and psychological environment of an organization. Google’s culture of innovation and employee freedom reflects this.

For More, Read: 17 Types of Culture

Theoretical Approaches to Culture in Sociology

Sociologists have come up with various theories of culture, explaining why and how they exist.

1. Functionalism

Functionalism sees society as a group of elements that function together to maintain a stable whole.

Émile Durkheim, one of the founders of sociology, used an organic analogy to explain this. In a biological creature, all the constituent body parts work together to maintain an organic whole; in the same way, the parts of a society work together to ensure its stability.

Under such a view, culture is something that helps society to exist as a stable entity: cultural norms, for example, guide people’s behavior and ensure that they appropriately. Talcott Parsons said that culture performs “latent pattern maintenance”, meaning that it maintains social patterns of behavior and allows orderly change (Little).

To put it in one sentence, culture ensures that our “way of life” remains stable. Functionalism can provide excellent insights into all cultural expressions, even ones that seem quite irrational. For example, sports in themselves may seem quite “useless”.

What exactly is the point of trying to hit a ball far or kicking one into a net? Functionalists would explain that sports brings people together and creates a collective experience. It provides an outlet for aggressive energies, teaches us the value of teamwork, and of course, makes us physically fit.

Real culture allows a given society to see how far its aspirations lie from its achievements, allowing it to take redressal steps.

Read More about Functionalism in Sociology Here

2. Conflict Theory

Conflict theory focuses on the power relations that exist in society and believes that culture is entrenched in this power play.

These sociologists emphasize the unequal nature of social structures, and how they are related to factors of class, race, gender, etc. For them, culture is another tool for reinforcing and perpetuating these differences.

A key focus of conflict theory is on critiquing “ideology”, which is seen as a set of ideas that support or conceal the existing power relations in society. For example, as we discussed earlier, one of the key beliefs in the United States is the “American Dream”: anyone can work hard to achieve success.

But this belief hardly takes into account larger social factors (historical oppression, generational wealth, etc.). For a white, middle-class man, it may certainly be possible to work hard and achieve incredible success. But for a poor black woman, the American dream is mostly a myth.

Case Study: Conflict Theory and Culture

Conflict Theorists (and some functionalists) argue that there are two types of culture: ideal and real. The ideal culture is the culture that society strives toward – it’s the standard that maintains a goal of society. This is contrasted to real culture , which sociologist Max Weber says is the real-life manifestation of culture. This includes the elements of oppression and inequalities, which ideal culture does not consider. For example, if ideal culture talks about democracy, real culture points out how politics is biased toward privileged people.

3. Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism focuses on face-to-face interactions of individuals and sees culture as an outcome of these.

Such sociologists believe that human interactions are a continuous process of finding meaning from the actions of others and the objects in the environment (Little). All these actions & objects have a “symbolic meaning”.

Culture is how this symbolic meaning is shared and interpreted. Symbolic interactions also believe that our social world is quite dynamic: instead of obsessing over rigid structures, they emphasize how situations and meanings are constantly changing.

For a symbolic interactionist, something as simple as a t-shirt communicates a symbolic meaning. They would argue that clothes do not simply play a “functional” role (protection) but also express something about the wearer.

See Also: Examples of Symbolic Interactionism

Culture includes the values, practices, and artifacts of a group of people; it is our shared “way of life”.

Most human behavior —from what we eat at breakfast to when we go back to sleep—is socially acquired through culture. It gives us a shared sense of “meaning” and guides human behavior, helping to maintain a stable society. However, it is also entrenched in power relations and can both enforce/challenge those relations.

Little, William. (2016). Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition . OpenEd.

Murdock, George P. (1949). Social Structure . Macmillan.

Scott, Taylor. (2014). A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford.

Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom. J. Murray.

Sourabh Yadav (MA)

Sourabh Yadav is a freelance writer & filmmaker. He studied English literature at the University of Delhi and Jawaharlal Nehru University. You can find his work on The Print, Live Wire, and YouTube.

Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Indirect Democracy: Definition and Examples
Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Pluralism (Sociology): Definition and Examples
Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Equality Examples
Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Instrumental Learning: Definition and Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

3.1 What Is Culture?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

Differentiate between culture and society
Explain material versus nonmaterial culture
Discuss the concept of cultural universals as it relates to society
Compare and contrast ethnocentrism and xenocentrism

Humans are social creatures. According to Smithsonian Institution research, humans have been forming groups for almost 3 million years in order to survive. Living together, people formed common habits and behaviors, from specific methods of childrearing to preferred techniques for obtaining food.

Almost every human behavior, from shopping to marriage, is learned. In the U.S., marriage is generally seen as an individual choice made by two adults, based on mutual feelings of love. In other nations and in other times, marriages have been arranged through an intricate process of interviews and negotiations between entire families. In Papua New Guinea, almost 30 percent of women marry before the age of 18, and 8 percent of men have more than one wife (National Statistical Office, 2019). To people who are not from such a culture, arranged marriages may seem to have risks of incompatibility or the absence of romantic love. But many people from cultures where marriages are arranged, which includes a number of highly populated and modern countries, often prefer the approach because it reduces stress and increases stability (Jankowiak 2021).

Being familiar with unwritten rules helps people feel secure and at ease. Knowing to look left instead of right for oncoming traffic while crossing the street can help avoid serious injury and even death. Knowing unwritten rules is also fundamental in understanding humor in different cultures. Humor is common to all societies, but what makes something funny is not. Americans may laugh at a scene in which an actor falls; in other cultures, falling is never funny. Most people want to live their daily lives confident that their behaviors will not be challenged or disrupted. But even an action as seemingly simple as commuting to work evidences a great deal of cultural propriety, that is, there are a lot of expected behaviors. And many interpretations of them.

Take the case of going to work on public transportation. Whether people are commuting in Egypt, Ireland, India, Japan, and the U.S., many behaviors will be the same and may reveal patterns. Others will be different. In many societies that enjoy public transportation, a passenger will find a marked bus stop or station, wait for the bus or train, pay an agent before or after boarding, and quietly take a seat if one is available. But when boarding a bus in Cairo, Egypt, passengers might board while the bus is moving, because buses often do not come to a full stop to take on patrons. In Dublin, Ireland, bus riders would be expected to extend an arm to indicate that they want the bus to stop for them. And when boarding a commuter train in Mumbai, India, passengers must squeeze into overstuffed cars amid a lot of pushing and shoving on the crowded platforms. That kind of behavior might be considered rude in other societies, but in Mumbai it reflects the daily challenges of getting around on a train system that is taxed to capacity.

Culture can be material or nonmaterial. Metro passes and bus tokens are part of material culture, as are the buses, subway cars, and the physical structures of the bus stop. Think of material culture as items you can touch-they are tangible . Nonmaterial culture , in contrast, consists of the ideas, attitudes, and beliefs of a society. These are things you cannot touch. They are intangible . You may believe that a line should be formed to enter the subway car or that other passengers should not stand so close to you. Those beliefs are intangible because they do not have physical properties and can be touched.

Material and nonmaterial aspects of culture are linked, and physical objects often symbolize cultural ideas. A metro pass is a material object, but it represents a form of nonmaterial culture, namely, capitalism, and the acceptance of paying for transportation. Clothing, hairstyles, and jewelry are part of material culture, but the appropriateness of wearing certain clothing for specific events reflects nonmaterial culture. A school building belongs to material culture symbolizing education, but the teaching methods and educational standards are part of education’s nonmaterial culture.

As people travel from different regions to entirely different parts of the world, certain material and nonmaterial aspects of culture become dramatically unfamiliar. What happens when we encounter different cultures? As we interact with cultures other than our own, we become more aware of the differences and commonalities between others and our own. If we keep our sociological imagination awake, we can begin to understand and accept the differences. Body language and hand gestures vary around the world, but some body language seems to be shared across cultures: When someone arrives home later than permitted, a parent or guardian meeting them at the door with crossed arms and a frown on their face means the same in Russia as it does in the U.S. as it does in Ghana.

Cultural Universals

Although cultures vary, they also share common elements. Cultural universals are patterns or traits that are globally common to all societies. One example of a cultural universal is the family unit: every human society recognizes a family structure that regulates sexual reproduction and the care of children. Even so, how that family unit is defined and how it functions vary. In many Asian cultures, for example, family members from all generations commonly live together in one household. In these cultures, young adults continue to live in the extended household family structure until they marry and join their spouse’s household, or they may remain and raise their nuclear family within the extended family’s homestead. In the U.S., by contrast, individuals are expected to leave home and live independently for a period before forming a family unit that consists of parents and their offspring. Other cultural universals include customs like funeral rites, weddings, and celebrations of births. However, each culture may view and conduct the ceremonies quite differently.

Anthropologist George Murdock first investigated the existence of cultural universals while studying systems of kinship around the world. Murdock found that cultural universals often revolve around basic human survival, such as finding food, clothing, and shelter, or around shared human experiences, such as birth and death or illness and healing. Through his research, Murdock identified other universals including language, the concept of personal names, and, interestingly, jokes. Humor seems to be a universal way to release tensions and create a sense of unity among people (Murdock, 1949). Sociologists consider humor necessary to human interaction because it helps individuals navigate otherwise tense situations.

Sociological Research

Is music a cultural universal.

Imagine that you are sitting in a theater, watching a film. The movie opens with the protagonist sitting on a park bench with a grim expression on their face. The music starts to come in. The first slow and mournful notes play in a minor key. As the melody continues, the heroine turns her head and sees a man walking toward her. The music gets louder, and the sounds don’t seem to go together – as if the orchestra is intentionally playing the wrong notes. You tense up as you watch, almost hoping to stop. The character is clearly in danger.

Now imagine that you are watching the same movie – the exact same footage – but with a different soundtrack. As the scene opens, the music is soft and soothing, with a hint of sadness. You see the protagonist sitting on the park bench with a grim expression. Suddenly, the music swells. The woman looks up and sees a man walking toward her. The notes are high and bright, and the pace is bouncy. You feel your heart rise in your chest. This is a happy moment.

Music has the ability to evoke emotional responses. In television shows, movies, commercials, and even the background music in a store, music has a message and seems to easily draw a response from those who hear it – joy, sadness, fear, victory. Are these types of musical cues cultural universals?

In 2009, a team of psychologists, led by Thomas Fritz of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, studied people’s reactions to music that they’d never heard (Fritz et al., 2009). The research team traveled to Cameroon, Africa, and asked Mafa tribal members to listen to Western music. The tribe, isolated from Western culture, had never been exposed to Western culture and had no context or experience within which to interpret its music. Even so, as the tribal members listened to a Western piano piece, they were able to recognize three basic emotions: happiness, sadness, and fear. Music, the study suggested, is a sort of universal language.

Researchers also found that music can foster a sense of wholeness within a group. In fact, scientists who study the evolution of language have concluded that originally language (an established component of group identity) and music were one (Darwin, 1871). Additionally, since music is largely nonverbal, the sounds of music can cross societal boundaries more easily than words. Music allows people to make connections, where language might be a more difficult barricade. As Fritz and his team found, music and the emotions it conveys are cultural universals.

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism

Although human societies have much in common, cultural differences are far more prevalent than cultural universals. For example, while all cultures have language, analysis of conversational etiquette reveals tremendous differences. In some Middle Eastern cultures, it is common to stand close to others in conversation. Americans keep more distance and maintain a large “personal space.” Additionally, behaviors as simple as eating and drinking vary greatly from culture to culture. Some cultures use tools to put the food in the mouth while others use their fingers. If your professor comes into an early morning class holding a mug of liquid, what do you assume they are drinking? In the U.S., it’s most likely filled with coffee, not Earl Grey tea, a favorite in England, or Yak Butter tea, a staple in Tibet.

Some travelers pride themselves on their willingness to try unfamiliar foods, like the late celebrated food writer Anthony Bourdain (1956-2017). Often, however, people express disgust at another culture's cuisine. They might think that it’s gross to eat raw meat from a donkey or parts of a rodent, while they don’t question their own habit of eating cows or pigs.

Such attitudes are examples of ethnocentrism , which means to evaluate and judge another culture based on one’s own cultural norms. Ethnocentrism is believing your group is the correct measuring standard and if other cultures do not measure up to it, they are wrong. As sociologist William Graham Sumner (1906) described the term, it is a belief or attitude that one’s own culture is better than all others. Almost everyone is a little bit ethnocentric.

A high level of appreciation for one’s own culture can be healthy. A shared sense of community pride, for example, connects people in a society. But ethnocentrism can lead to disdain or dislike of other cultures and could cause misunderstanding, stereotyping, and conflict. Individuals, government, non-government, private, and religious institutions with the best intentions sometimes travel to a society to “help” its people, because they see them as uneducated, backward, or even inferior. Cultural imperialism is the deliberate imposition of one’s own cultural values on another culture.

Colonial expansion by Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, and England grew quickly in the fifteenth century was accompanied by severe cultural imperialism. European colonizers often viewed the people in these new lands as uncultured savages who needed to adopt Catholic governance, Christianity, European dress, and other cultural practices.

A modern example of cultural imperialism may include the work of international aid agencies who introduce agricultural methods and plant species from developed countries into areas that are better served by indigenous varieties and agricultural approaches to the particular region. Another example would be the deforestation of the Amazon Basin as indigenous cultures lose land to timber corporations.

When people find themselves in a new culture, they may experience disorientation and frustration. In sociology, we call this culture shock . In addition to the traveler’s biological clock being ‘off’, a traveler from Chicago might find the nightly silence of rural Montana unsettling, not peaceful. Now, imagine that the ‘difference’ is cultural. An exchange student from China to the U.S. might be annoyed by the constant interruptions in class as other students ask questions—a practice that is considered rude in China. Perhaps the Chicago traveler was initially captivated with Montana’s quiet beauty and the Chinese student was originally excited to see a U.S.- style classroom firsthand. But as they experience unanticipated differences from their own culture, they may experience ethnocentrism as their excitement gives way to discomfort and doubts about how to behave appropriately in the new situation. According to many authors, international students studying in the U.S. report that there are personality traits and behaviors expected of them. Black African students report having to learn to ‘be Black in the U.S.’ and Chinese students report that they are naturally expected to be good at math. In African countries, people are identified by country or kin, not color. Eventually, as people learn more about a culture, they adapt to the new culture for a variety of reasons.

Culture shock may appear because people aren’t always expecting cultural differences. Anthropologist Ken Barger (1971) discovered this when he conducted a participatory observation in an Inuit community in the Canadian Arctic. Originally from Indiana, Barger hesitated when invited to join a local snowshoe race. He knew he would never hold his own against these experts. Sure enough, he finished last, to his mortification. But the tribal members congratulated him, saying, “You really tried!” In Barger’s own culture, he had learned to value victory. To the Inuit people, winning was enjoyable, but their culture valued survival skills essential to their environment: how hard someone tried could mean the difference between life and death. Over the course of his stay, Barger participated in caribou hunts, learned how to take shelter in winter storms, and sometimes went days with little or no food to share among tribal members. Trying hard and working together, two nonmaterial values, were indeed much more important than winning.

During his time with the Inuit tribe, Barger learned to engage in cultural relativism . Cultural relativism is the practice of assessing a culture by its own standards rather than viewing it through the lens of one’s own culture. Practicing cultural relativism requires an open mind and a willingness to consider, and even adapt to, new values, norms, and practices.

However, indiscriminately embracing everything about a new culture is not always possible. Even the most culturally relativist people from egalitarian societies—ones in which women have political rights and control over their own bodies—question whether the widespread practice of female genital mutilation in countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan should be accepted as a part of cultural tradition. Sociologists attempting to engage in cultural relativism, then, may struggle to reconcile aspects of their own culture with aspects of a culture that they are studying. Sociologists may take issue with the practices of female genital mutilation in many countries to ensure virginity at marriage just as some male sociologists might take issue with scarring of the flesh to show membership. Sociologists work diligently to keep personal biases out of research analysis.

Sometimes when people attempt to address feelings of ethnocentrism and develop cultural relativism, they swing too far to the other end of the spectrum. Xenocentrism is the opposite of ethnocentrism, and refers to the belief that another culture is superior to one’s own. (The Greek root word xeno-, pronounced “ZEE-no,” means “stranger” or “foreign guest.”) An exchange student who goes home after a semester abroad or a sociologist who returns from the field may find it difficult to associate with the values of their own culture after having experienced what they deem a more upright or nobler way of living. An opposite reaction is xenophobia, an irrational fear or hatred of different cultures.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for sociologists studying different cultures is the matter of keeping a perspective. It is impossible for anyone to overcome all cultural biases. The best we can do is strive to be aware of them. Pride in one’s own culture doesn’t have to lead to imposing its values or ideas on others. And an appreciation for another culture shouldn’t preclude individuals from studying it with a critical eye. This practice is perhaps the most difficult for all social scientists.

Sociology in the Real World

Overcoming culture shock.

During her summer vacation, Caitlin flew from Chicago, Illinois to Madrid, Spain to visit Maria, the exchange student she had befriended the previous semester. In the airport, she heard rapid, musical Spanish being spoken all around her.

Exciting as it was, she felt isolated and disconnected. Maria’s mother kissed Caitlin on both cheeks when she greeted her. Her imposing father kept his distance. Caitlin was half asleep by the time supper was served—at 10 p.m. Maria’s family sat at the table for hours, speaking loudly, gesturing, and arguing about politics, a taboo dinner subject in Caitlin’s house. They served wine and toasted their honored guest. Caitlin had trouble interpreting her hosts’ facial expressions, and did not realize she should make the next toast. That night, Caitlin crawled into a strange bed, wishing she had not come. She missed her home and felt overwhelmed by the new customs, language, and surroundings. She’d studied Spanish in school for years—why hadn’t it prepared her for this?

What Caitlin did not realize was that people depend not only on spoken words but also on body language, like gestures and facial expressions, to communicate. Cultural norms and practices accompany even the smallest nonverbal signals (DuBois, 1951). They help people know when to shake hands, where to sit, how to converse, and even when to laugh. We relate to others through a shared set of cultural norms, and ordinarily, we take them for granted.

For this reason, culture shock is often associated with traveling abroad, although it can happen in one’s own country, state, or even hometown. Anthropologist Kalervo Oberg (1960) is credited with first coining the term “culture shock.” In his studies, Oberg found that most people are excited at first to encounter a new culture. But bit by bit, they become stressed by interacting with people from a different culture who speak another language and use different regional expressions. There is new food to digest, new daily schedules to follow, and new rules of etiquette to learn. Living with this constant stress can make people feel incompetent and insecure. People react to frustration in a new culture, Oberg found, by initially rejecting it and glorifying one’s own culture. An American visiting Italy might long for a “real” pizza or complain about the unsafe driving habits of Italians.

It helps to remember that culture is learned. Everyone is ethnocentric to an extent, and identifying with one’s own country is natural. Caitlin’s shock was minor compared to that of her friends Dayar and Mahlika, a Turkish couple living in married student housing on campus. And it was nothing like that of her classmate Sanai. Sanai had been forced to flee war-torn Bosnia with her family when she was fifteen. After two weeks in Spain, Caitlin had developed more compassion and understanding for what those people had gone through. She understood that adjusting to a new culture takes time. It can take weeks or months to recover from culture shock, and it can take years to fully adjust to living in a new culture.

By the end of Caitlin’s trip, she had made new lifelong friends. Caitlin stepped out of her comfort zone. She had learned a lot about Spain, but discovered a lot about herself and her own culture.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/3-1-what-is-culture

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3.1 Culture and the Sociological Perspective

Learning objectives.

Describe examples of how culture influences behavior.
Explain why sociologists might favor cultural explanations of behavior over biological explanations.

As this evidence on kissing suggests, what seems to us a very natural, even instinctual act turns out not to be so natural and biological after all. Instead, kissing seems best understood as something we learn to enjoy from our culture , or the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts (material objects) that are part of a society. Because society, as defined in Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” , refers to a group of people who live in a defined territory and who share a culture, it is obvious that culture is a critical component of any society.

If the culture we learn influences our beliefs and behaviors, then culture is a key concept to the sociological perspective. Someone who grows up in the United States differs in many ways, some of them obvious and some of them not so obvious, from someone growing up in China, Sweden, South Korea, Peru, or Nigeria. Culture influences not only language but the gestures we use when we interact, how far apart we stand from each other when we talk, and the values we consider most important for our children to learn, to name just a few. Without culture, we could not have a society.

The profound impact of culture becomes most evident when we examine behaviors or conditions that, like kissing, are normally considered biological in nature. Consider morning sickness and labor pains, both very familiar to pregnant women before and during childbirth, respectively. These two types of discomfort have known biological causes, and we are not surprised that so many pregnant women experience them. But we would be surprised if the husbands of pregnant women woke up sick in the morning or experienced severe abdominal pain while their wives gave birth. These men are neither carrying nor delivering a baby, and there is no logical—that is, biological—reason for them to suffer either type of discomfort.

And yet scholars have discovered several traditional societies in which men about to become fathers experience precisely these symptoms. They are nauseous during their wives’ pregnancies, and they experience labor pains while their wives give birth. The term couvade refers to these symptoms, which do not have any known biological origin. Yet the men feel them nonetheless, because they have learned from their culture that they should feel these types of discomfort (Doja, 2005). And because they should feel these symptoms, they actually do so. Perhaps their minds are playing tricks on them, but that is often the point of culture. As sociologists William I. and Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1928) once pointed out, if things are perceived as real, then they are real in their consequences. These men learn how they should feel as budding fathers, and thus they feel this way. Unfortunately for them, the perceptions they learn from their culture are real in their consequences.

The example of drunkenness further illustrates how cultural expectations influence a behavior that is commonly thought to have biological causes. In the United States, when people drink too much alcohol, they become intoxicated and their behavior changes. Most typically, their inhibitions lower and they become loud, boisterous, and even rowdy. We attribute these changes to alcohol’s biological effect as a drug on our central nervous system, and scientists have documented how alcohol breaks down in our body to achieve this effect.

Culture affects how people respond when they drink alcohol. Americans often become louder and lose their sexual inhibitions when they drink, but people in some societies studied by anthropologists often respond very differently, with many never getting loud or not even enjoying themselves.

Melissa Wang – bp tourney – CC BY-SA 2.0.

This explanation of alcohol’s effect is OK as far as it goes, but it turns out that how alcohol affects our behavior depends on our culture. In some small, traditional societies, people drink alcohol until they pass out, but they never get loud or boisterous; they might not even appear to be enjoying themselves. In other societies, they drink lots of alcohol and get loud but not rowdy. In some societies, including our own, people lose sexual inhibitions as they drink, but in other societies they do not become more aroused. The cross-cultural evidence is very clear: alcohol as a drug does affect human behavior, but culture influences the types of effects that occur. We learn from our culture how to behave when drunk just as we learn how to behave when sober (McCaghy, Capron, Jamieson, & Carey, 2008).

Culture and Biology

These examples suggest that human behavior is more the result of culture than it is of biology. This is not to say that biology is entirely unimportant. As just one example, humans have a biological need to eat, and so they do. But humans are much less under the control of biology than any other animal species, including other primates such as monkeys and chimpanzees. These and other animals are governed largely by biological instincts that control them totally. A dog chases any squirrel it sees because of instinct, and a cat chases a mouse for the same reason. Different breeds of dogs do have different personalities, but even these stem from the biological differences among breeds passed down from one generation to another. Instinct prompts many dogs to turn around before they lie down, and it prompts most dogs to defend their territory. When the doorbell rings and a dog begins barking, it is responding to ancient biological instinct.

Because humans have such a large, complex central nervous system, we are less controlled by biology. The critical question then becomes, how much does biology influence our behavior? Predictably, scholars in different disciplines answer this question in different ways. Most sociologists and anthropologists would probably say that culture affects behavior much more than biology does. In contrast, many biologists and psychologists would give much more weight to biology. Advocating a view called sociobiology , some scholars say that several important human behaviors and emotions, such as competition, aggression, and altruism, stem from our biological makeup. Sociobiology has been roundly criticized and just as staunchly defended, and respected scholars continue to debate its premises (Freese, 2008).

Why do sociologists generally favor culture over biology? Two reasons stand out. First, and as we have seen, many behaviors differ dramatically among societies in ways that show the strong impact of culture. Second, biology cannot easily account for why groups and locations differ in their rates of committing certain behaviors. For example, what biological reason could explain why suicide rates west of the Mississippi River are higher than those east of it, to take a difference discussed in Chapter 2 “Eye on Society: Doing Sociological Research” , or why the U.S. homicide rate is so much higher than Canada’s? Various aspects of culture and social structure seem much better able than biology to explain these differences.

Many sociologists also warn of certain implications of biological explanations. First, they say, these explanations implicitly support the status quo. Because it is difficult to change biology, any problem with biological causes cannot be easily fixed. A second warning harkens back to a century ago, when perceived biological differences were used to justify forced sterilization and mass violence, including genocide, against certain groups. As just one example, in the early 1900s, some 70,000 people, most of them poor and many of them immigrants or African Americans, were involuntarily sterilized in the United States as part of the eugenics movement, which said that certain kinds of people were biologically inferior and must not be allowed to reproduce (Lombardo, 2008). The Nazi Holocaust a few decades later used a similar eugenics argument to justify its genocide against Jews, Catholics, gypsies, and gays (Kuhl, 1994). With this history in mind, some scholars fear that biological explanations of human behavior might still be used to support views of biological inferiority (York & Clark, 2007).

Key Takeaways

Culture refers to the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts that are part of any society.
Because culture influences people’s beliefs and behaviors, culture is a key concept to the sociological perspective.
Many sociologists are wary of biological explanations of behavior, in part because these explanations implicitly support the status quo and may be used to justify claims of biological inferiority.

For Your Review

Have you ever traveled outside the United States? If so, describe one cultural difference you remember in the nation you visited.
Have you ever traveled within the United States to a very different region (e.g., urban versus rural, or another part of the country) from the one in which you grew up? If so, describe one cultural difference you remember in the region you visited.
Do you share the concern of many sociologists over biological explanations of behavior? Why or why not?

Doja, A. (2005). Rethinking the couvade . Anthropological Quarterly, 78, 917–950.

Freese, J. (2008). Genetics and the social science explanation of individual outcomes [Supplement]. American Journal of Sociology, 114, S1–S35.

Kuhl, S. (1994). The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lombardo, P. A. (2008). Three generations, no imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

McCaghy, C. H., Capron, T. A., Jamieson, J. D., & Carey, S. H. (2008). Deviant behavior: Crime, conflict, and interest groups . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs . New York, NY: Knopf.

York, R., & Clark, B. (2007). Gender and mathematical ability: The toll of biological determinism. Monthly Review, 59, 7–15.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.2: Culture and the Sociological Perspective

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 2012

Learning Objectives

Describe examples of how culture influences behavior.
Explain why sociologists might favor cultural explanations of behavior over biological explanations.

As this evidence on kissing suggests, what seems to us a very natural, even instinctual act turns out not to be so natural and biological after all. Instead, kissing seems best understood as something we learn to enjoy from our culture, or the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts (material objects) that are part of a society. Because society, as defined previously refers to a group of people who live in a defined territory and who share a culture, it is obvious that culture is a critical component of any society.

The profound impact of culture becomes most evident when we examine behaviors or conditions that, like kissing, are normally considered biological in nature. Consider morning sickness and labor pains, both very familiar to pregnant women before and during childbirth, respectively. These two types of discomfort have known biological causes, and we are not surprised that so many pregnant women experience them. But we would be surprised if the husbands of pregnant women woke up sick in the morning during their wives’ pregnancies or experienced severe abdominal pains while their wives gave birth. These men are neither carrying nor delivering a baby, and there is no logical—that is, biological—reason for them to suffer either type of discomfort.

And yet anthropologists have discovered many societies (most of which are industrialized) in which men about to become fathers experience precisely these symptoms. They are nauseous during their wives’ pregnancies, and they experience labor pains while their wives give birth. The term couvade refers to these symptoms, which do not have any known biological origin. Yet the men feel them nonetheless, because they have learned from their culture that they should feel these types of discomfort (Doja, 2005). And because they should feel these symptoms, they actually do so. Perhaps their minds are playing tricks on them, but that is often the point of culture. As sociologists William I. and Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1928) once pointed out, if things are perceived as real, then they are real in their consequences. These men learn how they should feel as budding fathers, and thus they feel this way. Unfortunately for them, the perceptions they learn from their culture are real in their consequences.

This explanation of alcohol’s effect is OK as far as it goes, but it turns out that how alcohol affects our behavior depends on our culture. In some societies anthropologists have studied, people drink alcohol until they pass out, but they never get loud or boisterous; they might not even appear to be enjoying themselves. In other societies, they drink lots of alcohol and get loud but not rowdy. In some societies, including our own, people lose sexual inhibitions as they drink, but in other societies they do not become more aroused. The anthropological evidence is very clear: alcohol as a drug does affect human behavior, but culture influences the types of effects that occur. We learn from our culture how to behave when drunk just as we learn how to behave when sober (McCaghy, Capron, Jamieson, & Carey, 2008).

Culture Versus Biology

Because humans have such a large, complex central nervous system, we are less controlled by biology. The critical question then becomes, how much does biology influence our behavior? Predictably, scholars in different disciplines answer this question in different ways. Many sociologists and anthropologists would probably say that culture affects behavior much more than biology does. In contrast, many biologists and psychologists would give much more weight to biology. Advocating a view called sociobiology, some scholars say that several important human behaviors and emotions, such as competition, aggression, and altruism, stem from our biological makeup. Sociobiology has been roundly criticized and just as staunchly defended, and respected scholars continue to debate its premises (Freese, 2008).

Why do sociologists generally favor culture over biology? Two reasons stand out. First, and as kissing and the other examples illustrate, many behaviors differ dramatically among societies in ways that show the strong impact of culture. Second, biology cannot easily account for why groups and locations differ in their rates of committing certain behaviors. For example, what biological reason could explain why suicide rates west of the Mississippi River are higher than those east of it, to take a difference discussed in the previous chapter, or why the U.S. homicide rate is so much higher than Canada’s? Various aspects of culture and social structure seem much better able than biology to explain these differences.

Many sociologists also warn of certain implications of biological explanations. First, they say, these explanations implicitly support the status quo. Because it is difficult to change biology, any problem with biological causes cannot be easily fixed. Consider evidence that women do worse than men on the math SAT exam and are less likely to be mathematically gifted. Some researchers attribute this difference to women’s lower testosterone levels or to their brain structures (Halpern et al., 2007/2008). Suppose either explanation is true. What, then, can we do to improve women’s math SAT scores? Operate on their brains? Give them more testosterone? Obviously either option is morally unethical and practically impossible. If these are the only options, then there is little hope for improving women’s math ability, and gender inequality in math (and in high-paying jobs requiring good math ability) will continue.

Suppose instead, as many educators think, that the gender math difference stems from social and cultural factors, including the way girls and boys are brought up, the amount of attention teachers pay to them, and gender stereotyping in children’s books (Penner, 2008). None of these factors will be easy to change, but at least it is more possible to change them than to change biological conditions. Sociology’s perspective on gender and math performance thus promises at least some hope in reducing gender inequality in math performance.

A second possible implication of biological explanations that concerns some sociologists harkens back to an earlier time. This was a time when perceived biological differences among races and religions were used to justify forced sterilization and mass violence, including genocide, against certain groups. As just one example, in the early 1900s, some 70,000 people, most of them poor and many of them immigrants or African Americans, were involuntarily sterilized in the United States as part of the eugenics movement, which said that certain kinds of people were biologically inferior and must not be allowed to reproduce (Lombardo, 2008). The Nazi Holocaust a few decades later used a similar eugenics argument to justify its genocide against Jews, Catholics, gypsies, and gays (Kuhl, 1994). With this history in mind, some scholars fear that biological explanations of human behavior might still be used to support views of biological inferiority (York & Clark, 2007).

Culture refers to the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts that are part of any society.
Because culture influences people’s beliefs and behaviors, culture is a key concept to the sociological perspective.
Many sociologists are wary of biological explanations of behavior, in part because these explanations implicitly support the status quo and may be used to justify claims of biological inferiority.

For Your Review

Have you ever traveled outside the United States? If so, describe one cultural difference you remember in the nation you visited.
Have you ever traveled within the United States to a very different region (e.g., urban versus rural, or another part of the country) from the one in which you grew up? If so, describe one cultural difference you remember in the region you visited.
Do you share the concern of many sociologists over biological explanations of behavior? Why or why not?
Doja, A. (2005). Rethinking the couvade . Anthropological Quarterly, 78, 917–950.
Freese, J. (2008). Genetics and the social science explanation of individual outcomes [Supplement]. American Journal of Sociology, 114, S1–S35.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007/2008). Sex, math and scientific achievement. Scientific American Mind, 18, 44–51.
Lombardo, P. A. (2008). Three generations, no imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kuhl, S. (1994). The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German national socialism . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McCaghy, C. H., Capron, T. A., Jamieson, J. D., & Carey, S. H. (2008). Deviant behavior: Crime, conflict, and interest groups . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Penner, A. M. (2008). Gender differences in extreme mathematical achievement: An international perspective on biological and social factors [Supplement]. American Journal of Sociology, 114, S138–S170.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs . New York, NY: Knopf.
York, R., & Clark, B. (2007). Gender and mathematical ability: The toll of biological determinism. Monthly Review, 59, 7–15.

Sociology 101

This lesson introduces how sociologists think about culture. Culture is one of the fundamental elements of social life and, thus, an essential topic in sociology. Many of the concepts presented here will come up again in almost every subsequent lesson. Because culture is learned so slowly and incrementally, we are often unaware of how it becomes ingrained in our ways of thinking. Applying the sociological perspective to culture requires us to recognize the strangeness in our own culture. This lesson outlines the basics of studying culture and allows you to test potential relationships between television depictions of families and marriage rates. Although culture is familiar to us, you should be seeing it in a new and different way by the time you finish this lesson.

Learning Objectives ¶

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

Describe how sociologists define the components of culture.

Identify variation in culture and cultural change.

Analyze the relationship between culture and family.

Deadlines ¶

Be sure to hand these in before the deadline

Inquizitive Chapter 3 (Thursday at 9:30am)

Obesity case study (Sunday at 10:00pm)

Disclosure reflection (Sunday at 10:00pm)

Class Lecture Recorded 2/9. Slides

Cultures, Subcultures, & Countercultures

Symbols, Values, & Norms

Discuss (Thursday during class): ¶

Disclosure ¶.

is an unprecedented, eye-opening look at transgender depictions in film and television, revealing how Hollywood simultaneously reflects and manufactures our deepest anxieties about gender. Leading trans thinkers and creatives, including Laverne Cox, Lilly Wachowski, Yance Ford, Mj Rodriguez, Jamie Clayton, and Chaz Bono, share their reactions and resistance to some of Hollywood’s most beloved moments. Grappling with films like A Florida Enchantment (1914), Dog Day Afternoon, The Crying Game, and Boys Don’t Cry, and with shows like The Jeffersons, The L-Word, and Pose, they trace a history that is at once dehumanizing, yet also evolving, complex, and sometimes humorous. What emerges is a fascinating story of dynamic interplay between trans representation on screen, society’s beliefs, and the reality of trans lives. Reframing familiar scenes and iconic characters in a new light, director Sam Feder invites viewers to confront unexamined assumptions, and shows how what once captured the American imagination now elicit new feelings. Disclosure provokes a startling revolution in how we see and understand trans people.. Official Description

We will be applying our sociological tools to the film Disclosure on Netflix. We will watch it together starting Thursday during class.

Be sure to have the movie ready to roll at the start of class.

Case Study: Obesity ¶

In this assignment, you will read about a sociological study that examined whether obesity spreads like a contagion through social networks. You will then be asked five questions about the research. These case studies help you develop your ability to understand and evaluate social science research and make connections between research and our theoretical toolkit.

Note: Once you start, you only have 30 minutes to complete this assignment. Students with ARS accomodations may have additional time.

You can find the case study on Sakai under Tests and Quizzes. It is only available during this lesson week.

Questions ¶

If you have any questions at all about what you are supposed to do on this assignment, please remember I am here to help. Reach out any time so I can support your success.

Post it in the Slack #questions channel!

Signup for virtual office hours !

Email me or your TA.

Lesson Keywords ¶

ethnocentrism

cultural relativism

material culture

symbolic culture

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

social control

Dominant culture

counterculture

ideal culture

real culture

cultural diffusion

cultural imperialism

The least you need to know ¶

Theoretical perspectives and culture

Extra Resources ¶

Teaching videos ¶.

Overview of culture (Khan Academy)

Culture and society (Khan Academy)

Subculture vs counterculture (Khan Academy)

Culture lag and culture shock (Khan Academy)

Diffusion (Khan Academy)

What is normal? Exploring folkways, mores, and taboos (Khan Academy)

Other Resources ¶

To Code Switch or Not to Code Switch? (8 minute TEDx Talk by Katelynn Duggins)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (Anita Sarkeesian’s series of video essays on gender and the gamer community)

The Story of Stuff (Annie Leonard on where our stuff comes from.]

Search Menu
Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Emotions
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Language Acquisition
Language Variation
Language Families
Lexicography
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Media
Music and Religion
Music and Culture
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Politics
Law and Society
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Clinical Neuroscience
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Toxicology
Medical Oncology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Medical Ethics
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Security
Computer Games
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business Ethics
Business Strategy
Business History
Business and Technology
Business and Government
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic History
Economic Systems
Economic Methodology
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Political Theory
Politics and Law
Public Policy
Public Administration
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology

Jeffrey C. Alexander, Lillian Chavenson Saden Professor of Sociology at Yale University, works in the areas of theory, culture and politics, developing a meaning-centered approach to the tensions and possibilities of modern social life. He is a Director of the Center for Cultural Sociology, also at Yale. His recent publications include: Understanding the Holocaust: A Debate (2009); A Contemporary Introduction to Sociology: Culture and Society in Transition (with Kenneth Thompson 2008); Social Performances: Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual (with Bernhard Giesen and Jason Mast 2006); Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity (with Eyerman, Giesen, Sztompka, and Smelser 2004); and The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology (2003). In his major work The Civil Sphere (2006), Alexander developed a new cultural-sociological theory of democracy, a perspective that provides the foundation The Performance of Politics: Obama's Victory and the Democratic Struggle for Power (2010) and his newest volume, Performative Revolution in Egypt: An Essay in Cultural Power (2011).

Ronald N. Jacobs is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. His research focuses on culture, media, and the public sphere. His current work is concentrated in two areas: (1) a study of media intellectuals and the social space of opinion, and (2) a study of entertainment media and the aesthetic public sphere.

Philip Smith is Professor of Sociology and a Director of the Yale Center for Cultural Sociology. He has written widely in the field of cultural sociology and cultural theory. Recent books include Why War? (Chicago 2005); Punishment and Culture (Chicago 2008) and Incivility: The Rude Stranger in Public (Cambridge 2010, with R. King and T. Phillips).

Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This book examines the independent debates and modes of thought that have developed in the field of cultural sociology. It describes a variety of pathways for engaging in cultural sociology, all of which offer a template for elucidating the ways that meaning shapes social life. It offers an account of the origins of cultural sociology and how it has grown into the maturity it enjoys today, focusing on the so-called “cultural turn”—an epochal transformation in the human sciences—and the need to reflect on what could be learned from adjacent disciplines about cultural analysis. It also explores the major differences and disagreements between a “cultural sociology” and a “sociology of culture,” the impact of cultural sociology on other academic disciplines of inquiry, the tensions within the field, and a cultural sociological approach to power and solidarity.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

Google Scholar Indexing
GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

InVisible Culture

A journal for visual culture, cultural studies and the sociology of culture.

Issue 01: The Worlding of Cultural Studies (Winter 1998)

Janet Wolff

It is almost exactly ten years since I came to the United States from Britain, and exactly seven since I came to Rochester as Director of the Program in Visual and Cultural Studies. It is time to reflect on my complicated relationship to the discipline of sociology. And when I say that it is time, I don’t mean this biographically, but more in relation to recent intellectual developments within both sociology and cultural studies, as well as to the (mostly) antagonistic relationship between the two, at least in this country. In my opinion, cultural studies at its best is sociological. And yet, in the continuing cross-disciplinary dialogue that has characterized the field of cultural studies in the decade or so of its progress in the United States, the discipline of sociology has been notably absent. At the same time, within the field of sociology, the study of culture has expanded enormously in the last twenty years among sociologists of culture, and among those who have more recently been calling themselves ‘cultural sociologists,’ which is not the same thing. Some of these sociologists have themselves adopted the term “cultural studies” to describe their work, thereby both claiming (mistakenly, as I shall suggest) to have pre-empted the newer field, and ignoring the possibility of a productive encounter with cultural studies in general and with related developments in the study of culture in the humanities. Within the past couple of years, this has begun to change, and I will be reviewing some of the newer work that begins to bridge the hitherto radical divide between sociology and cultural studies. My primary intention here is to point to the advantages that will ensue if sociologists enter into the interdisciplinary dialogue that constitutes the ever-changing field of cultural studies.

Sociologists in the Humanities

Before I came to the United States, I taught for thirteen years in a department of sociology in Britain. My geographical move also entailed an apparent change of disciplines and,given the nature of the academy in Britain and the United States, also a change of academic divisions, from the social sciences to the humanities. But the change was only apparent, except in the material sense of my institutional location. My work didn’t change radically (though I hope it has developed in the past decade). I did not re-train, or take another Ph.D. Again, this biographical fact is interesting, I think, not for its own sake, but because of what it says about the organization of disciplines in Britain and the United States, and about the study of culture in the late twentieth century. There are a number of issues here. First, given my background and training in European sociology and my involvement in interdisciplinary work, I don’t think many departments of sociology in this country would have been prepared to give me a home. The discipline here has remained resolutely intra disciplinary as a collective project; moreover, it has manifested a strong attachment (in some cases a growing one) to positivistic scholarship, including quantitative and mathematical methods. For the most part, this has also been largely true of that sub-specialization called the sociology of culture, most of whose practitioners continue to operate with untheorized and unexamined categories of social analysis. Second, new emphases have emerged in the humanities, which have invited certain sociological perspectives: new historicism, the new art history, post-colonial and feminist approaches to literature and culture, and so on. And thirdly, the success and proliferation of cultural studies in the U.S., in academic programs and in publishing has provided new opportunities for such cross-departmental moves. Given my alienation from American sociology, my life-long interest in the study of culture, and the hospitality of the humanities, my current situation makes plenty of sense. Nor is my own change of disciplinary home unique. Simon Frith, delivering his inaugural lecture as Professor of English at the University of Strathclyde, opened his talk in this way:

I ought to begin by saying that I am honoured to be giving this lecture, and indeed I am, but I have to confess that my dominant emotion is surprise. I haven’t studied English formally since I did O levels, and I still find it a peculiar turn of events that I should now be a professor of English. My academic training was in sociology, and I’m tempted to treat this lecture as a sociological case study: what does it tell us about the present state of English studies that a sociologist can chair an English department? 1

Nevertheless, I suppose I have felt since coming to Rochester that my “mission” was to encourage a “sociological imagination” 2 among students in the graduate program in Rochester, a program, after all, initially founded by the collaboration of colleagues in art history, film studies, and comparative literature, only more recently including the participation of colleagues from anthropology and history. (There is no longer a department of sociology at the University.) I have wanted to direct them to the texts and methods of sociology and social history, and to urge them to supplement their interpretative and critical readings of visual texts with attention to the institutional and social processes of cultural production and consumption. It was a very pleasant moment for me recently when a graduate student, who came to discuss his search for a useful concept of “style,” told me that he had been reading Max Weber, and said (without any prompting) before he left my office “I suppose I should look at Simmel’s work.” Earlier, I was delighted when a graduate student (now a faculty member at the University of Virginia) completely switched his dissertation topic and ended up writing a social and institutional (and, of course, critical) history of art education in the United States–a dissertation, by the way, that will be published next year by the University of California Press. 3 Actually this last case was particularly interesting because a year earlier (my first year in Rochester) this student had taken a class with me on the sociology of culture in which I had devoted quite a bit of time to the work of American sociologists. Despite my strong reservations about this work, I wanted students to recognize the importance of paying attention to institutional processes and structures in the study of culture. Some members of the class (including him) complained that this work was boring (which, actually, much of it is). Moreover, given my own criticisms of the work, which I explained, they wondered why we were spending time on it. I did not have a very good answer, except to say that nobody else was doing this kind of work well, and that I had hoped that we could read it critically in order to consider how we might indeed investigate what sociologists call “the production of culture.” As it turned out, that is indeed what that graduate student did, incorporating what he found most useful in that tradition into a fine study whose intellectual influences were at the same time more wide-ranging and sophisticated.

Sociology in Cultural Studies

In this essay, I want to suggest that cultural studies can benefit from a stronger connection with sociology. A good deal of what I have to say consists of a critical review of recent developments in sociology, a discipline which for the most part has still not come to terms with the fact that, as Avery Gordon has put it, “the real itself and its ethnographic or sociological representations are . . . fictions, albeit powerful ones that we do not experience as fictions but as true.” 4 I review this work not so that I can simply dismiss it, but because, first, it retains a very high profile in the study of culture within the discipline of sociology and, second, because, as I shall show, it makes claims either to supersede or to displace cultural studies. (I should point out here, though, that there are other branches of sociology, less visible and less influential, that offer more promising approaches to the field, especially work influenced by the Frankfurt School.) 5 My critique of trends in sociology is entirely motivated by my hope for a productive encounter between cultural studies and sociology. The benefit to both fields will be the mutual recognition that–again to quote Avery Gordon Ò”the increasingly sophisticated understandings of representation and of how the social world is textually or discursively constructed still require an engagement with the social structuring practices that have long been the province of sociological inquiry.” 6 What sociologists can contribute to the project of cultural analysis is a focus on institutions and social relations, as well as on the broader perspective of structured axes of social differentiation and their historical transformations–axes of class, status, gender, nationality, and ethnicity. You don’t, of course, have to be a sociologist to pay attention to these analytic dimensions, and there are certainly cultural studies scholars who do just this kind of work. (Stuart Hall, Tony Bennett and Angela McRobbie come to mind.) My suggestion, rather, is that the fact that such questions constitute the raison d’être of sociology is enough reason to want sociologists to contribute to the debate about the study of culture.

Let me give an example from my own work that illustrates how it has happened that I have been led back to my old discipline, sometimes against my own expectations. This relates to an exhibition I had planned to curate a couple of years ago. The fact that the exhibition didn’t take place in the end was, for me, as interesting as the material I explored in researching my proposal. I was invited by the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York to propose an exhibition for the series “Collection in Context.” These small, one-room shows have had very varied themes, and have in common only the fact that their focus is a work, or works, from the collection. Examples of exhibitions in the series include Edward Hopper in Paris, Gorky’s Betrothals paintings, works from the year 1952, and the history of the Museum itself, in its various architectural homes. My proposal was to show the work of women who were active in the circle around Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney in the twenty years leading up to the founding of the Museum in 1931, women who, though for the most part their names are now not well-known, were rather high-profile in that period and indeed up to about 1950. They had several group and one-person shows in the Whitney Studio Club, which preceded the Museum, and much of their work was owned by the Whitney on its opening, was shown in the 1931 opening exhibition, and was still prominent in a 1949 exhibition which served as a memorial to Juliana Force, Gertrude Whitney’s assistant and the first director of the Museum. My first assumption was that I was engaged in the familiar feminist project of retrieval–of the re-presentation of work by women that had been “hidden from history,” as a result of the by now well-known joint effects of selective art criticism, art history, and museum practices. It turned out that a sociology of cultural production served me much better than this 1970s feminist model in understanding both the contemporary success and the consequent disappearance from view of these women artists. About a third of all the work shown and bought by Force and Whitney was by women, and there is little evidence that women artists fared worse than men in terms of exhibition. Access to this exposure was, above all else, a function of a particular (realist and figurative) aesthetic, and membership of particular social groups and networks. These two factors were related, most of the artists having trained with the same teachers at the Art Students League in New York, and being products of some version of Ashcan-style training. Of the twenty or so women artists I considered, Katharine Schmidt, Dorothy Varian, Nan Watson, Marguerite Zorach, Peggy Bacon, and Mabel Dwight were among the founder members of the Whitney Studio Club. Varian, Bacon, Schmidt, Rosella Hartman, and Lucile Blanch, among others, lived at least part of the time, as did Juliana Force, in the artists’ community in Woodstock, New York. Schmidt, Bacon, Varian, Molly Luce, and Isabel Bishop trained at the Art Students League. Schmidt worked as assistant to Juliana Force for several years. Peggy Bacon was married to the artist, Alexander Brook, who was also assistant for a while to Force. And Nan Watson was married to the critic Forbes Watson, who was Juliana Force’s lover for twelve years; she also had the largest number of one-person exhibitions at the Whitney (four), and the largest number of works owned by the Museum at its opening (eight). Although there is, of course, a lot more to say about the social relations of production and exhibition, the point is that I was inevitably led to explore those social relations as I considered the incidence of work by women, and the preference for a particular aesthetic.

The ultimate demise of that aesthetic, and the eventual decision (mine and the Whitney’s) not to proceed with the show, were also best understood in terms of a sociology of aesthetics. By the 1950s, the Whitney’s long-standing commitment to realist art had been definitively superseded by what we might call the MoMA orthodoxy–the preference for European modernism. (The consequences for realist artists affected men as well as women; the work of Alexander Brook, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, and Guy Pène du Bois is as little known as that of their female counterparts in the Whitney circle.) As is well known, for example from debates and confrontations in the 1970s, the Whitney since then has operated centrally within a modernist aesthetic (and, more recently, a postmodernist one). It was, finally, an “aesthetic” judgement that undermined the possibility of the exhibition, since it was deemed that the work I planned to exhibit was not “good” enough to show. Looking back on that decision, I can now see that my acquiescence in that assessment was as much a product of my own modernist prejudices as anything. (An interesting double coda to the story is that, first, the Whitney did mount a version of that show–works on paper by the same women artists, but shown in their more marginal gallery at Champion, Connecticut–and, second, that since last year the Whitney has shown signs of taking its own figurative tradition and holdings more seriously, particularly after a major show there last year of American art as seen and curated by British curators from the Tate Gallery–as The New Yorker put it, “American art viewed through eyes used to looking at Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud.” 7 )

“Sociologically Impoverished” Cultural Studies

My summary of this historical movement has been necessarily rather sketchy, but I hope that the point is clear. In the case of the Whitney, the rise and decline (and possible revival) of a particular aesthetic has everything to do with institutional practices and social relations. (It also has everything to do with how one might read competing visual representations, which I have not addressed in this brief summary.) I am suggesting that the sociological perspective is invaluable in directing attention to certain critical aspects in the production of culture. As I said earlier, I am well aware that it is not only sociologists who are equipped to undertake this kind of work. For example, the focus on the ideology and practices of the museum has been prominent in some important work in recent years in what is usually called “museology” or “museum studies,” most of it done by people who are not trained in sociology. But my concern to see sociology figure more centrally in visual studies, and in cultural studies more generally, is expressed in a context in which institutional and social issues are too often ignored, and in which, as Steven Seidman has put it, the social is often “textualized.” 8 A lot has been written about the “Americanization of cultural studies,” much of this writing critical of the trend. 9 Some writers object to what they perceive as a depoliticization of the project in its move from Britain (and originally, of course, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham) to the United States–its detachment from social movements and its increasingly professionalized and rarefied life in the academy. Others, noting that the proliferation of cultural studies scholarship and teaching through the 1980s and 1990s has been largely (though not solely) in humanities departments, especially departments of English and Comparative Literature, identify an abandonment of the more sociological approach that understands culture in terms of axes of stratification and inequality (primarily class relations in the early years of the Birmingham Centre, but later also relations of gender and race). Cary Nelson, in one of the more impassioned critiques of this trend, describes American cultural studies as a kind of textualism–a set of ingenious, and perhaps politically-informed, new readings of texts, but readings that are ultimately ungrounded, arbitrary, and shallow. 10 In a recent article, the sociologist Michael Schudson makes a similar point through a careful and serious analysis of what he takes as a paradigmatic text in American cultural studies–Donna Haraway’s “Teddy Bear Patriarchy.” 11 Haraway’s paper, which, as Schudson says, has been much admired, and reprinted more than once, is a study of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and specifically its African Hall. She “reads” the African Hall, its taxidermy and its dioramas, in terms of its genesis in the 1930s, focusing on the key role of its designer, the taxidermist Carl Akeley, whose activities as explorer, hunter, and designer of museum “habitat groups” are discussed at some length. She also notes that the Second International Congress of Eugenics was held at the Museum in 1921 (though Akeley was not present at the time). Her interpretation of the African Hall, and of the Museum itself, is in terms of race, sex and class in New York City. (Of course I cannot do justice to her long and complex discussion here.) Schudson attacks the piece on a number of grounds. 12 First, he challenges key factual points in her argument (arguing, for example, that the 1921 eugenics conference was not indicative of anything significant, either at the Museum or in New York in general, since, as he points out, the following conference, in 1932, attracted less than 100 people, and the Museum is, in any case, more closely associated with the anthropologist Franz Boas, who opposed the eugenics movement). Second, he takes issue with the logic of her paper, especially her use of conversion by synecdoche to link display, ideology, and politics. (The logic, briefly, is that African Hall stands for the Museum; the meaning of the Hall lies in the original plans for it; and the African Hall in 1921 or 1926 represents the unaltered meaning of the Hall.) These links, he argues, are ultimately quite arbitrary. And this is related to his third objection, which is that Haraway’s essay is a study in interpretation whose superficial use of sociology allows her to ignore “how real people read museums” and “what meaning actual visitors take from African Hall or the museum generally.” 13 Here, I think, he is not insisting on ethnographic studies of visitors, but rather on the careful historical and social placement of the moments and artifacts she selects for analysis. (He offers a parodic equivalent to this kind of reasoning, in which New York University is essentially fascist–a logic which works through synecdoche whereby the Elmer Holmes Bobst Library stands for the University, and its architect, Philip Johnson, at one time a fascist sympathizer, stands for the Library) 14 .

Poststructuralist Sociology

Schudson’s general point is that contemporary cultural studies is “sociologically impoverished,” to its detriment. Although he is not himself particularly devoted to the Birmingham tradition in his own work, which is in the field of media studies, he concludes with the prediction that “the works of cultural studies that will last will be the sort that follow Williams and Hoggart and Thompson, in close attention to lived experience.” 15 This invocation of the “founding fathers” of British cultural studies reminds us that, despite the particular disciplinary affiliations of these writers (literature and history), Birmingham cultural studies was firmly grounded in sociology–in the texts of Weber, Marx, Mannheim, the symbolic interactionists and other sociological and ethnographic traditions. 16 Throughout its theoretical transformations–its continuing revisions of neo-Marxist thought through the work of Althusser, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, its radical re-thinking of its critical and conceptual framework in response to feminism and ethnic studies, and its rapprochement with poststructuralism–”Birmingham” work retained its primary focus on the structures of social life. Let me be clear, though, that I am emphatically not recommending a return to origins, or an uncritical resumption of a pre-critical sociology. The critique of the early Birmingham model from the point of view of poststructuralist theory, first made, famously, by Rosalind Coward in an article in Screen in 1977, has been definitive. 17 In short, a sociological model that takes categories of “class” and “gender” as unproblematically given , and that reads cultural activities and products as expressions of class (and other) positions, is revealed as fundamentally determinist and theoretically naïve. As Coward shows, cultural studies must address questions of representation, signification, and the nature of the subject if it is to deal adequately with its chosen field. 18 But this poststructuralist turn in cultural studies, which renders at least problematic any talk of ‘real’ social relations, can be taken as opening the way to exactly that kind of cultural studies rejected by Nelson, Schudson and others–namely the interpretation of cultural practices undertaken without a grounding in identifiable social categories. Once we acknowledge that those social categories (class, race, gender, and so on) are themselves discursive constructs, historically changing articulations, and, ultimately, no more than heuristic devices in analysis (and, of course, in political mobilization) then where is that solidity of the social world on which a cultural studies that is not “purely textual” can depend?

In my view, this necessary re-thinking of the sociological project does not translate into license for “wild interpretation.” Indeed, in the past few years there have been encouraging signs within the discipline of a determination to engage with critical theory in the humanities and in cultural studies. Two sociology journals have devoted special issues to the subject of “postmodernism”– Sociological Theory in 1991 and Theory and Society in 1992. 19 A 1995 conference at the University of California in Davis, celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the journal Theory and Society , whose theme was “Interpreting Historical Change at the End of the Twentieth Century: The Challenges of the Present Age to Historical Thought and Social Theory,” was notable for an interdisciplinary group of speakers, though mostly from within the social sciences. Some of the papers were informed by contemporary cultural and poststructuralist theory, and although this inevitably meant a dialogue of incomprehension (sometimes hostility) from time to time the very possibility of such a debate at a sociology conference was something new. 20 One speaker, the historian John Toews, had published an important article on the practice of intellectual history after the linguistic turn, which has already provoked debate about the nature of social science in the light of poststructuralism. 21 Another participant, historian William Sewell, is the author of an equally important essay, which, as he summarizes it, “attempts to develop a theory of structure that restores human agency to social actors, builds the possibility of change into the concept of structure, and overcomes the divide between the semiotic and materialist visions of structure.” 22 This 1992 article, published in the mainstream American Journal of Sociology , together with his more recent work (for example, a paper on the concept of “culture” delivered at last year’s ASA meetings), while not itself an example of a poststructuralist sociology, nevertheless begins the task of reconceptualizing such key sociological terms as “structure” and “culture” in ways partly informed by, and hence hospitable to, poststructuralist theory.

A conference at the University of California, Santa Barbara, organized in February 1997 by two sociologists, was designed explicitly to address the impact of cultural studies and theory in the humanities on “cultural sociology.” Although not all the papers took on this particular invitation, the conference’s two-paragraph rationale foregrounded the need for sociologists to take account of “new interpretive approaches in the humanities,”referring to deconstruction, anti-foundational thinking, and “sites of representation and discourse.” 23 The conference was entitled “The Cultural Turn Conference,” and although, as I will show in a moment, we find this term used by sociologists to mean simply a switch of focus from institutional and structural features of society to the study of culture, in this case it has the additional meaning, indicated in its published rationale, of what we might call “taking poststructuralism seriously.” In this, it is used more or less synonymously with “the linguistic turn” and the “semiotic turn.”

A few months ago, Blackwell published a book edited by the sociologist Elizabeth Long, and sponsored by the Sociology of Culture Section of the American Sociological Association, under the title From Sociology to Cultural Studies. Contributors include cultural studies scholars–Richard Johnson, Andrew Goodwin, Tricia Rose, George Lipsitz–as well as sociologists and anthropologists whose work is based in cultural studies–Herman Gray, George Marcus, Jon Cruz. The editor’s introduction reviews developments in British and American cultural studies and in critical theory in the humanities, as well as in the sociology of culture, and asserts her intention, with this volume, of facilitating the dialogue across these fields. Sociologist Steven Seidman proposes the “relativization” of sociology by its encounter with cultural studies (for him, primarily the Birmingham tradition, and including its own “semiotic turn” and its turn to psychoanalysis). Such a relativized sociology would, in his opinion, have a theory of the subject and of subjectivity, a critical-moral role that rejects the traditional sociological standpoint of value-neutrality, and, as a result, “more productive ways of handling problems or concerns which are considered important by some American sociologists, e.g. relating social structure and culture, meaning and power, agency and constraint, or articulating a stronger notion of culture.” 24 Other contributors take Elizabeth Long’s invitation to contribute to the book as the opportunity to stress the other side of the relationship–cultural studies’ need for a firmer sociological grounding. (Michael Schudson’s critique of Haraway, which I referred to earlier, and which appears in the book, is one example of this. Richard Johnson makes the same point, in his article on “reinventing cultural studies.”) 25 But of the seventeen contributors, almost all of them have, as Long points out in her introduction, “minimized territorial bickering” and have engaged seriously in the work at the intersection of sociology, the humanities, and cultural studies. 26

The Sociology of Culture

These developments, though, are occurring on the margins of the discipline of sociology (Long’s book remains atypical in the field,) and I am not especially optimistic about either a more extensive re-evaluation of the field or a more widespread enthusiasm among sociologists to engage in cross-disciplinary dialogue. I want to consider in particular two branches of sociology, both relevant to the study of culture, and each indifferent or hostile to cultural studies. Since between them these two fields account for most of the sociological work on culture, I believe it is important to look closely at their practices and assumptions. The first is the sociology of culture, or the sociology of the arts. This sub-specialization has gone from strength to strength in the past two decades, now constituting one of the largest sections in the American Sociological Association. At last year’s annual meetings, the Culture section merited five sessions and fifteen roundtables, on the basis of membership numbers. It has a quarterly newsletter, which publishes short but often important articles, and it has embarked on a series of volumes, published by Blackwell, of which the book edited by Elizabeth Long is the second. This work is represented most strongly by the study of arts organizations and institutions, known since the mid-l970s as “the production-of-culture approach.” Two special issues of journals appeared with that title in 1976 and 1978 ( American Behavioral Scientist and Social Research .) 27 Although this is not the only model for the sociology of culture, I have chosen to discuss it since it continues to be prominent in the field. 28 Moreover, its limitations are shared by most other work within the sub-discipline. A typical study, for example, investigates publishers’ decision-making criteria in two commercial publishing houses. Another looks at the role of the radio and record industries in relation to changes in the world of country music. A third studies the “gate-keeper” role of two commercial galleries in the New York art world in the 1950s. 29 These examples are all taken from the 1978 volume. But a quick review of more recent publications, and of conference presentations, confirms that twenty years later much of the work follows exactly this model. Other work has taken its departure from Howard Becker’s classic essay, “Art As Collective Action,” first published in 1974, and is devoted, like that essay, to the investigation of the social relations of cultural production, though in this case not necessarily within one institution–the roles of composer, performer, instrument-maker, bureaucrat, fund-raiser, and so on. 30

As I said earlier, most sociologists of culture and the arts base their work on pre-critical, sometimes positivistic, premises. The typical methodology is to select for analysis a specific arts organization (an opera company, an art school, a gallery), identifying its social hierarchies, its decision-making processes, and, often, the aesthetic outcomes of these extra-aesthetic factors (though it is rare that questions of aesthetics are permitted in this discourse, or indeed any discussion of works themselves). 31 But usually the institution is detached from both its social and its historical context, since the sociologist is dealing with the micro-social sphere. Ironically, the result is that this work is often both ahistorical and unsociological. The tenacious social-scientific commitment to “objectivity,” even in qualitative (rather than quantitative) work, blocks such scholarship from addressing certain questions of interpretation, representation and subjectivity. It is instructive to compare contemporary work in museology, much of it founded on these very questions, with a recent special issue of a social science journal on the theme of “Museum Research.” 32 Here are a couple of titles from the volume: “Art Museum Membership and Cultural Distinction: Relating Members’ Perceptions of Prestige to Benefit Usage;” “The Effect of School-based Arts Instruction on Attendance at Museums and the Performing Arts;” and “The Impact of Experiential Variables on Patterns of Museum Attendance.” (It is striking, by the way, that even Bourdieu, whose influence may be detected in a couple of these titles, can be turned into a tool for empiricism–as if he is represented simply by the tables and correlations in Distinction . 33 The complex analysis of cultural taste, in terms of class, habitus, and cultural capital, and the social critique of the Kantian aesthetic, which underlie Bourdieu’s empirical work, take second place to the enthusiasm for surveys, number-crunching, and what C. Wright Mills once denounced as “abstracted empiricism.”) One of the more quantitative studies in the volume considers museum-goers’ responses to ninety-four questions about their social, cultural, and political values and attitudes, using multiple classification analysis to explore the implications. 34 Here it is not so much that the statistical model seems inappropriate to the subject-matter–after all, interesting correlations can be found that way–but rather that the categories of analysis are themselves untheorized.

It is true that some sociologists of culture have begun to address issues previously ignored as “humanities” issues, and at least to consider the impact of poststructuralism. The first Blackwell volume, edited by Diana Crane and published in 1994, starts with an editor’s introduction that at least mentions such theoretical perspectives. And yet Crane’s very formulations make it clear that she has not got the point. For instance:

French theories, such as semiotics and poststructuralism, have inspired a greater interest in explicit or recorded culture. These theories are concerned with the ways in which texts can shape human behavior and can be used as a source of power by elites. 35

The change in worldview of which postmodernism is a symptom has increased the salience of cultural issues throughout the discipline. Specifically, the emphasis on predictability, coherence, and consistency which underlies the sociological method in most fields is being undermined by a new perspective which views culture as unpredictable, incoherent, and inconsistent. 36

One can find other examples of such awkward, and fundamentally misunderstood, references to theory in the work of several of the contributors to the volume. The fact that the editor and three of the contributors cite a famous article by Ann Swidler, which has had the status of a classic theoretical statement of the sociology of culture since its publication in 1986, and which recommends conceptualizing culture as a “tool kit,” used by people in constructing “strategies for action,” is another indication of the lingering positivism of the field. 37 Interesting, and also relevant, here is a survey of sociology of culture syllabi undertaken by Diana Crane for the ASA in 1995, which concluded that, though postmodernism and structuralism/semiotics do appear as categories on some syllabi, the British cultural studies tradition “remains peripheral in the Sociology of Culture in the United States.” 38 The second Blackwell volume, then, From Sociology to Cultural Studies , appears a rather radical intervention into the sub-specialization of the sociology of culture, and it will be interesting to see whether it makes a difference to on-going work in the field. The program for the 1998 ASA annual meetings, which arrived as I was writing this lecture, does not indicate much of a change in orientation. There is, in fact, a panel devoted to “Postmodern Social Theory” (there are 518 panels offered), but it is not connected to the Sociology of Culture Section, whose own panels appear, as far as one can tell from a list of titles, to be much the same as usual.

Sociological Theory and “Cultural sociology”

The second area of sociology which foregrounds culture is sociological theory itself–that is, the theory, or theories, of society. Here in the past couple of years the term “cultural sociology” has become prominent. But this term, and its associated reference to “the cultural turn,” has nothing at all to do with language, semiotics, or poststructuralism. It describes a sociological theory whose central focus is culture–here with the broader meaning of values, beliefs, ideas, and so on, and not (as in the sociology of culture) the arts in particular. Cultural sociology, then, might be the approach employed in other sub-fileds–the sociology of law, the sociology of education, industrial sociology–that have nothing to do with culture in the narrower sense. 39 The objective of these sociological theories is to emphasize the centrality of cultural aspects of everyday life, which they consider have been rendered secondary to economic, material, structural factors within the discipline. Several of these authors are fully aware of the tradition of cultural studies, but they either consider it intellectually inadequate, or maintain that anything worthwhile to be found in cultural studies was done earlier (and usually better) by sociologists. 40 Note the not-so-subtle adverbs and other indicators of priority in these examples. A short article in the ASA Culture Newsletter by Michele Lamont, past Chair of the ASA section on Culture, states:

Of course, the relationship we have with cultural theory, and with theory more generally, is very different from that of academics working in Comparative Literature, English, or History departments. While sociological theory has always been at the center of our common enterprise, the interest of those scholars in ‘theory’–to say nothing of their interest in power, class, etc.–has developed from their relatively recent encounter with European texts (Foucault, Ricoeur, Derrida, and others). 41

We need to painstakingly explain the place of theory in our field, and how issues that are being appropriated by New Historicism, New Cultural History, Cultural Studies, and ‘Race Theory’ have been conceptualized and studied empirically by sociologists. 42

Jeffrey Alexander, a prominent sociological theorist, employs the term “cultural studies,” though not in a way we might recognize, in order to claim, using the same rhetorical device, that this is nothing new to sociology, but dates from the classical sociological tradition, and particularly the work of Emile Durkheim and his followers: “Both as theory and empirical investigation, poststructuralism and semiotic investigations more generally can be seen as elaborating one of the pathways that Durkheim’s later sociology opens up.” 43 And another example is to be found in a collection of essays on the sociological tradition known as Symbolic Interactionism, an American tradition related to Pragmatism, and deriving from the work of John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, which emphasizes, and studies, the construction of meaning and of the “self” in social interaction. The book, incidentally, is entitled Symbolic Interactionism and Cultural Studies , though nothing in it really has anything to do with either the Birmingham tradition or cultural studies work being done within the humanities in the United States. In their introduction, the editors say:

We use the term cultural studies to refer to the classically humanistic disciplines which have lately come to use their philosophical, literary, and historical approaches to study the social construction of meaning, and other topics traditionally of interest to symbolic interactionists. 44

The sociological focus on the social construction of identity and of meaning does sound something like the project of a poststructuralist cultural studies. But the interest in social constructionism, as in work in the symbolic interactionist tradition, does not amount to the embrace of the radical re-thinking mandated by poststructuralist and psychoanalytic theory, which exposes the constitutive role of culture and representation in the social world, as well as the discursive nature of social categories themselves. In addition, the “identity” understood in the Meadian tradition of symbolic interactionism is a socially variable, but psychically fixed entity, whose coordinates are the traditional sociological ones of social position and social role.

Although Jeffrey Alexander appropriates the term “cultural studies” for sociology, his views on Birmingham cultural studies are clear–and totally dismissive–in a review he co-wrote in 1993 of the Cultural Studies reader which came out of the 1990 Illinois conference; actually, they are immediately clear in the title of the review, which is “The British are Coming . . . Again! The Hidden Agenda of ‘Cultural Studies.” 45 Like the symbolic interactionists, Alexander uses the term “cultural studies” to identify the type of sociological theory and sociological analysis he proposes. 46 In 1988, he edited a book entitled Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies . The book is premised on an argument spelled out in his introduction, namely that the later work of Durkheim–especially his work on religion–provides an excellent model for contemporary sociology, given its primary focus on symbolic process. (Durkheim is, of course, primarily perceived as the sociologist who stressed “social facts,” and those features of social life that are “external” to social actors; in the usual schematic history of classical sociology, he is contrasted in this with Max Weber, the begetter of “interpretative” sociology, with its focus on meaning and its methodology of Verstehen .) Alexander claims that Durkheim turned to the study of religion “because he wanted to give cultural processes more theoretical autonomy.” 47 He suggests that there are parallels with the work of Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Barthes, and Foucault, and that in some cases this is more than coincidence, but rather the unacknowledged influence of Durkheim. He goes on to review the work of certain sociologists, and some anthropologists, who have pursued Durkheim’s later theory (Edward Shils, Robert Bellah, Victor Turner, Mary Douglas,) and he outlines a project for a late-Durkheimian sociology, which he calls “cultural studies.” But, despite the names of structuralist and poststructuralist writers, this project is innocent of some of central theoretical insights of those writers. This is Alexander’s formulation of such a sociology:

[T]he major point of departure is The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life , which functions as a model for explaining central processes in secular social life. The other shared emphases follow naturally from this. They concentrate, first, on what might be called motivated expressive behavior as compared with conscious strategic action. This emotionally charged action, moreover, is not seen psychologistically, but instead as the basis for ritualization. It is conceived as action organized by reference to symbolic patterns that actors–even if they have a hand in changing them–did not intentionally create. 48

His own chapter in the book is on Watergate and Durkheimian sociology, and he summarizes it thus:

Using Weber and Parsons, I try to connect Durkheim’s later ideas to a broader theory of social structure. Rituals, I suggest, are simultaneously effects and causes of social crises; they open these liminal periods to symbolic and moral issues of the most profound kind. 49

The vocabulary here–”motivated expressive behavior,” “the basis for ritualization,” “action organized by reference to symbolic patterns,” “effects and causes”–reveals, I think, a fundamental conception of culture and society that is at the same time humanist, potentially mechanistic, and grounded in the sort of “layered” model of the social world which the crudest notions of base and superstructure once gave rise to (though I should add that Alexander’s hostility to Marxism is at least as energetic as his hostility to cultural studies and poststructuralist theory). In fact, some of the essays in the book are both interesting and quite sophisticated. 50 But Alexander’s theoretical formulae, and his conception of sociology as cultural studies, continues to operate with an understanding of discrete layers–the social/institutional, and the cultural/symbolic. This is not quite culture-as-tool kit (and in fact, in the Durkheim book, he briefly criticizes Swidler’s article) but it is not far removed from it in the end.

Sociology and Cultural Studies

I have spent some time discussing what has been called ‘the cultural turn’ in sociology to try to identify the grounds for a possible rapprochement with cultural studies, which, as I argued earlier, needs to work within a sociological perspective. I have pointed out that the sociology of culture (the study of the arts) has, for the most part, little interest in the critical revision of its categories of analysis. Cultural sociology, or sociological theory which foregrounds culture, on the other hand, claims both to preempt cultural studies and to improve on it. This applies to both symbolic interactionism and late-Durkheimianism. But in doing so, it retains the fatal weaknesses produced by ignoring a central aspect of cultural studies, namely a theory of representation. As Steven Seidman has put it, “American sociology, even today, has not made a semiotic turn.” 51 And, in the words of Roger Silverstone, a British media studies scholar, “the sociology of culture still finds comfort in the modernist securities of classification both of approach and subject matter.” 52 This means, amongst other things, that sociologists, while understanding the social construction of meaning and even of the social self, retain a concept of the subject as coherent, unified and stable. It also means (and this is a point made by Seidman) that they renounce the moral-critical role of cultural studies, maintaining the traditional social-scientific conception of the scholar as objective and value-neutral. And, of course, it means that sociologists cannot (yet) grasp the discursive nature of social relations and institutions. Obviously sociology, even after the “cultural turn,” will not do as a model for cultural studies.

In the context of this disciplinary intransigence, I base my hope for a growing dialogue between sociology and cultural studies (and between sociology and visual studies) on two things: first, what seems to me to be an increasing acknowledgement within cultural studies of the importance of ethnography, of the study of social processes and institutions, and of the understanding of those structural features of cultural life that the sociological imagination has the ability to illuminate; and second, the work of some sociologists, small in number and marginalized though they might be, who have extended their view and their conceptual frameworks into new engagements with critical theory. I am not asking literary critics or art historians to become sociologists, nor, for that matter, sociologists to become cultural studies scholars. We will continue to have discipline-based interests and discipline-based training. But cultural studies, after all, has always been the cross-disciplinary collaboration of interested scholars, and the body of work produced within that field is the product of those intellectual exchanges and influences. By now it is a cliché to say that cultural studies is not one thing–even that it cannot be defined. Stuart Hall, director of the Birmingham Centre throughout the decade of the 1970s, and still a major figure in the field, has said this, 53 as have the editors of various volumes of essays on cultural studies. 54 t is probably impossible to agree on any essential definition or unique narrative of cultural studies.” Grossberg et al., 3.] The major reason for this is that it is in the nature of cultural studies to proceed in symbiotic relationship with other disciplines. (I leave aside the question of whether or not cultural studies can itself be called a discipline.) And that relationship is, and has always been, an ad hoc affair. The particular configuration of scholars involved and, hence, disciplines represented in the multiple sites of cultural studies work has never, as far as I know, been a matter of planning, designing, and hiring. Rather, just as was the case in Birmingham in 1964, it is the product of a group of people, with a shared interest in culture (though not necessarily a shared idea of what they mean by ‘culture’) beginning to meet, to discuss each other’s work, to mount seminars and conferences and then, with any luck, to achieve the institutionalization of their collaborative practice in centers, programs, and teaching. Throughout the 1970s, as cultural studies programs were started in the United Kingdom (usually in polytechnics rather than universities), what was really striking was the great variety of intellectual combinations that emerged: literary criticism and sociology; psychology, linguistics and communication theory; literature, history and media studies. I know rather less about the 1980s spread of cultural studies in this country, though it seems to me that a good deal of American cultural studies has been a more intra-disciplinary, literary-studies affair. Here too, though, there have been new initiatives in which cross-disciplinary collaborations have become common.

This serendipitous nature of cultural studies, which I see as nothing but a great advantage, means it continues to be an open venture. My hope, then, is that sociologists will increasingly participate in its conversations. Historians and anthropologists are already part of the collective project (including here at Rochester), but to date sociologists have, for the most part, refrained from taking part. 55 At the risk of sounding as though I am , after all, recommending a return to origins, I would point out the productive collaborations in Birmingham, which in the early years and still now have included sociologists. (In fact, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies a few years ago merged with the Department of Sociology at that University.) In the United States, such conversations would both guarantee the re-sociologizing of cultural studies and ensure the long-overdue theoretical development of sociology.

Thanks to Douglas Crimp, Michael Holly, Paul Jones, Keith Moxey and Tony King for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Simon Frith, “Literary Studies as Cultural Studies–Whose Literature? Whose Culture?” Critical Quarterly 43 (Spring 1998): 3-26. In England, O-level exams were taken at age sixteen. ↩
The phrase was originally C. Wright Mills’s. See his The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959). ↩
Howard Singerman. The book is Art Subjects: Making Artists in the American University (Berkeley: University of California Press: 1999). ↩
Avery Gordon, Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 11. ↩
Paul Jones made this point to me, as an important corrective to what might seem to be a too generalized account of American sociology. ↩
Gordon, 11. ↩
Listings, The New Yorker , 15 September 1997. ↩
The term is used, for example, by Steven Seidman, “Relativizing Sociology: The Challenge of Cultural Studies,” in From Sociology to Cultural Studies: New Perspectives, ed. Elizabeth Long (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 37-61. Quotation from p. 41. ↩
See, for example, Mike Budd, Robert M. Entman and Clay Steinman: “The Affirmative Character of U.S. Cultural Studies,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 (1990): 169-184; Joel Pfister, “The Americanization of Cultural Studies,” reprinted in What is Cultural Studies? , ed. John Storey (London: Arnold, 1996), 287-299. ↩
Cary Nelson, “Always Already Cultural Studies: Two Conferences and a Manifesto,” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 14 (Spring 1991): 24-38. Nelson describes this work as a “recycled” semiotics, which he equates with textualism; however, as Keith Moxey has pointed out, however, semiotics at its best is not merely a “textual” enterprise: “Semiotics and the Social History of Art,” New Literary History 22 (Autumn 1991): 985-999. ↩
Donna Haraway, “Teddy Bear Patriarchy: Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908-1936,” reprinted in Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (New York: Routledge, 1989), 26-58. ↩
Michael Schudson, “Cultural Studies and the Social Construction of ‘Social Construction:’ Notes on ‘Teddy Bear Patriarchy,'” in Long, 379-398. ↩
Schudson, 386. ↩
Ibid., 388. ↩
Ibid., 395. ↩
Stuart Hall reviews this intellectual trajectory in his essay “Cultural Studies and the Centre: Some Problematics and Problems,” in Culture, Media, Language , ed. Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe and Paul Willis (London: Hutchinson, 1980), 15-47. ↩
Rosalind Coward, “Class, ‘Culture’ and the Social Formation,” Screen 18, (Spring 1977): 75-105. ↩
See also Victor Burgin’s introduction to In/Different Spaces: Place and Memory in Visual Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 1-36. Burgin reviews the development of cultural studies in Britain, and addresses in particular the turn to semiotics and psychoanalysis by those in the field. ↩
Sociological Theory 9 (Fall 1991), “Symposium on Postmodernism” and Theory and Society 21 (August 1991), “A Forum on Postmodernism.” ↩
Two examples of such an exchange were Michael Kennedy’s response to a paper by Russell Jacoby, and Judith Stacey’s response to a paper by Michèle Lamont, the respondent in each case challenging more traditional models of social analysis. ↩
John E. Toews, “Intellectual History after the Linguistic Turn: The Autonomy of Meaning and the Irreducibility of Experience,” The American Historical Review 92 (October 1987): 879-907. Although the article was published some time ago, Toews’s invited participation at the conference indicated a new openness among some social scientists to a certain rapprochement with critical trends in the humanities. ↩
William H. Sewell, Jr., “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation,” American Journal of Sociology 98 (July 1992): 1-29. Quotation from p. 1. ↩
Taken from the Web site for the conference at the time: culture.html at www.sscf.ucsb.edu. I should say that I didn’t attend the conference, and am guessing the nature of the papers given on the basis of their titles and of the speakers’ published works. ↩
Seidman, 55. ↩
Richard Johnson, “Reinventing Cultural Studies: Remembering for the Best Version,” in Long, 451-488. ↩
Long, 1. ↩
“The Production of Culture” special issue of American Behavioral Scientist 19 (July/August 1976) (re-published that year by Sage Publications Ltd., edited by Richard A. Peterseon) and “The Production of Culture” special issue of Social Research , 45 (Summer 1978). ↩
See for example Richard A. Peterson, “Culture Studies through the Production Perspective: Progress and Prospects,” in The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives , ed. Diana Crane (Oxford, UK and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1994), 163-189. ↩
Essays by Walter W. Powell, Richard A. Peterson, and Marcia Bystryn in Social Research 45 (Summer 1978). ↩
Howard S. Becker, “Art as Collective Action,” American Sociological Review 39 (1974). The article was later expanded in his book, Art Worlds (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982). ↩
I have written at greater length about these characteristics of U.S. sociology of culture. See for example The Social Production of Art (London: Macmillan, 1993), Chapter 2. ↩
“Museum Research,” special issue of Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research on Literature, the Media and the Arts 24 (November 1996). ↩
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984). ↩
Paul DiMaggio, “Are Art-museum Visitors Different from Other People? The Relationship between Attendance and Social and Political Attitudes in the United States,” in Poetics 24 (November 1996), 161. ↩
Diane Crane, “Introduction: The Challenge of the Sociology of Culture to Sociology as a Discipline,” in Crane, 1-20. Quotation from p. 5. ↩
Ibid. ↩
Ann Swidler, :Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,” American Sociological Review 15 (April 1986): 273-286. I should note that sociologists like Crane and Swidler, and others committed to versions of “qualitative” sociology, would certainly object to accusations of positivism. But my point is that scientistic methodologies can prevail whatever is being studied, meanings as much as observed behavior. ↩
Diana Crane, “Culture Syllabi and the Sociology of Culture: What Do Syllabi Tell Us?” Newletter of the Sociology of Culture Section of the American Sociological Association 10 (Winter 1996): 1, 6-8. Quotation from p. 7. ↩
Indeed, one session at the 1997 ASA meetings was devoted to reviews of the “return to culture” in a number of sub-specializations, under the general panel heading “The Return to Culture in American Sociology.” ↩
Herman Gray also makes this point, in passing: “Professional mainstream theorists strongly identified with specialties like social theory and the sociology of culture hold fast to the claim that sociology long ago dealt with the issues and questions that now appear under the sign of cultural studies.” Herman Gray: “Is Cultural Studies Inflated? The Cultural Economy of Cultural Studies in the United States,” in Disciplinarity and Dissent in Cultural Studies , ed. Cary Nelson and Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar (New York and London: Routledge, 1996), 203-216. Quotation is from p. 210. ↩
Michele Lamont, “Crisis or No Crisis: Culture and Theory in Sociology–The Humanities and Elsewhere,” Newsletter of the Sociology of Culture Section of the American Sociological Association 6 (Spring 1992): 8-9. Quotation on p. 8, my italics. ↩
Lamont, 9, my italics. ↩
Jeffrey C. Alexander, “Introduction: Durkheimian Sociology and Cultural Studies Today,” in Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies , ed. Jeffrey C. Alexander (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1-21, my italics. Quotation from p. 6. See also Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith, “The Discourse of American Civil Society: A New Proposal for Cultural Studies,” Theory and Society 22 (April 1993): 151-207. ↩
Howard S. Becker and Michal M. McCall’s introduction to Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies , ed. Howard S. Becker and Michal M. McCall (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 1-15. Quotation from p. 4. I have italicized “lately” and “traditionally.” ↩
Steven Jay Sherwood, Philip Smith and Jeffrey Alexander, “The British are Coming . . . Again! The Hidden Agenda of ‘Cultural studies,'” Contemporary Sociology 22 (May 1993): 370-375. ↩
He uses the term interchangeably, and therefore confusingly, with the term “cultural sociology.” See Jeffrey C. Alexander, “Cultural Sociology or Sociology of Culture? Towards a Strong Program,” Newsletter of the Sociology of Culture Section of the American Sociological Association 10 (Spring-Summer 1996): 1, 3-5. ↩
Alexander, Durkheimian Sociology , 2. ↩
Ibid., 11. ↩
Ibid., 14. ↩
For example, Eric Rothenbulher’s study of mass strikes as ritual and interpretation, whose discussion of the symbolic meaning of such conflict has quite a bit in common with Birmingham work on subculture. Eric Rothenbulher, “The Liminal Fight: Mass Strikes as Ritual and Interpretation,” in Alexander , Durkheimian Sociology , 66-90. ↩
Seidman, 43. ↩
Roger Silverstone, “The Power of the Ordinary: On Cultural Studies and the Sociology of Culture,” Sociology 28, (November 1994): 991-1001. Quotation on p.993. ↩
“Cultural studies has multiple discourses; it has a number of different histories. . . . It included many different kinds of work.” Stuart Hall, “Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies,” in Cultural Studies , ed. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler (New York: Routledge, 1992), 277-286. Quotation from p. 278. Also: “Cultural studies is not one thing; it has never been one thing.” Stuart Hall, “The Emergence of Cultural Studies and the Crisis of the Humanities,” October 53, (1990): 11-90. Quotation from p. 11. ↩
For example: “[I ↩
The University of California, Santa Barbara, is one exception to this generalization. ↩

How to Write a Sociological Essay: Explained with Examples

This article will discuss “How to Write a Sociological Essay” with insider pro tips and give you a map that is tried and tested. An essay writing is done in three phases: a) preparing for the essay, b) writing the essay, and c) editing the essay. We will take it step-by-step so that nothing is left behind because the devil, as well as good grades and presentation, lies in the details.

Writing is a skill that we learn throughout the courses of our lives. Learning how to write is a process that we begin as soon as we turn 4, and the learning process never stops. But the question is, “is all writing the same?”. The answer is NO. Do you remember your initial lessons of English when you were in school, and how the teacher taught various formats of writing such as formal, informal, essay, letter, and much more? Therefore, writing is never that simple. Different occasions demand different styles and commands over the writing style. Thus, the art of writing improves with time and experience.

Those who belong to the world of academia know that writing is something that they cannot escape. No writing is the same when it comes to different disciplines of academia. Similarly, the discipline of sociology demands a particular style of formal academic writing. If you’re a new student of sociology, it can be an overwhelming subject, and writing assignments don’t make the course easier. Having some tips handy can surely help you write and articulate your thoughts better.

[Let us take a running example throughout the article so that every point becomes crystal clear. Let us assume that the topic we have with us is to “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” .]

Phase I: Preparing for the Essay

Step 1: make an outline.

So you have to write a sociological essay, which means that you already either received or have a topic in mind. The first thing for you to do is PLAN how you will attempt to write this essay. To plan, the best way is to make an outline. The topic you have, certainly string some thread in your mind. They can be instances you heard or read, some assumptions you hold, something you studied in the past, or based on your own experience, etc. Make a rough outline where you note down all the themes you would like to talk about in your essay. The easiest way to make an outline is to make bullet points. List all the thoughts and examples that you have in find and create a flow for your essay. Remember that this is only a rough outline so you can always make changes and reshuffle your points.

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” . Your outline will look something like this:

Importance of food
Definition of Diaspora
Relationship between food and culture
Relationship between food and nation
Relationship between food and media
Relationship between food and nostalgia
How food travels with people
Is food practices different for different sections of society, such as caste, class, gender ]

Step 2: Start Reading

Once you have prepared an outline for your essay, the next step is to start your RESEARCH . You cannot write a sociological essay out of thin air. The essay needs to be thoroughly researched and based on facts. Sociology is the subject of social science that is based on facts and evidence. Therefore, start reading as soon as you have your outline determined. The more you read, the more factual data you will collect. But the question which now emerges is “what to read” . You cannot do a basic Google search to write an academic essay. Your research has to be narrow and concept-based. For writing a sociological essay, make sure that the sources from where you read are academically acclaimed and accepted.

Some of the websites that you can use for academic research are:

Google Scholar
Shodhganga

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” .

For best search, search for your articles by typing “Food+Diaspora”, “Food+Nostalgia”, adding a plus sign (+) improves the search result.]

Step 3: Make Notes

This is a step that a lot of people miss when they are preparing to write their essays. It is important to read, but how you read is also a very vital part. When you are reading from multiple sources then all that you read becomes a big jumble of information in your mind. It is not possible to remember who said what at all times. Therefore, what you need to do while reading is to maintain an ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY . Whenever you’re reading for writing an academic essay then have a notebook handy, or if you prefer electronic notes then prepare a Word Document, Google Docs, Notes, or any tool of your choice to make notes.

As you begin reading, note down the title of the article, its author, and the year of publication. As you read, keep writing down all the significant points that you find. You can either copy whole sentences or make shorthand notes, whatever suits you best. Once you’ve read the article and made your notes, write a summary of what you just read in 8 to 10 lines. Also, write keywords, these are the words that are most used in the article and reflect its essence. Having keywords and a summary makes it easier for you to revisit the article. A sociological essay needs a good amount of research, which means that you have to read plenty, thus maintaining an annotated bibliography helps you in the greater picture.

Annotate and divide your notes based on the outline you made. Having organized notes will help you directly apply the concepts where they are needed rather than you going and searching for them again.]

Phase II: Write a Sociological Essay

A basic essay includes a title, an introduction, the main body, and a conclusion. A sociological essay is not that different as far as the body of contents goes, but it does include some additional categories. When you write a sociological essay, it should have the following contents and chronology:

Subtitle (optional)
Introduction

Conclusion

References/ Bibliography

Now let us get into the details which go into the writing of a sociological essay.

Step 4: Writing a Title, Subtitle, Abstract, and Keywords

The title of any document is the first thing that a reader comes across. Therefore, the title should be provocative, specific, and the most well-thought part of any essay. Your title should reflect what your essay will discuss further. There has to be a sync between the title and the rest of your content. The title should be the biggest font size you use in your essay.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: A title preferably should not exceed 5 to 7 words.

This is an optional component of any essay. If you think that your title cannot justify the rest of the contents of your essay, then you opt for a subtitle. The subtitle is the secondary part of the title which is used to further elucidate the title. A subtitle should be smaller in font than the Title but bigger than the rest of the essay body.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Make the font color of your subtitle Gray instead of Black for it to stand out.

The abstract is a 6 to 10 line description of what you will talk about in your essay. An abstract is a very substantial component of a sociological essay. Most of the essays written in academia exceed the word limit of 2000 words. Therefore, a writer, i.e., you, provides the reader with a short abstract at the beginning of your essay so that they can know what you are going to discuss. From the point of view of the reader, a good abstract can save time and help determine if the piece is worth reading or not. Thus, make sure to make your abstract as reflective to your essay as possible using the least amount of words.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: If you are not sure about your abstract at first, it is always great to write the abstract in the end after you are done with your essay.

Your abstract should highlight all the points that you will further discuss. Therefore your abstract should mention how diasporic communities are formed and how they are not homogeneous communities. There are differences within this large population. In your essay, you will talk in detail about all the various aspects that affect food and diasporic relationships. ]

Keywords are an extension of your abstract. Whereas in your abstract you will use a paragraph to tell the reader what to expect ahead, by stating keywords, you point out the essence of your essay by using only individual words. These words are mostly concepts of social sciences. At first, glance, looking at your keywords, the reader should get informed about all the concepts and themes you will explain in detail later.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Bold your Keywords so that they get highlighted.

Your keywords could be: Food, Diaspora, Migration, and so on. Build on these as you continue to write your essay.]

Step 5: Writing the Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusion

Introduction

Your introduction should talk about the subject on which you are writing at the broadest level. In an introduction, you make your readers aware of what you are going to argue later in the essay. An introduction can discuss a little about the history of the topic, how it was understood till now, and a framework of what you are going to talk about ahead. You can think of your introduction as an extended form of the abstract. Since it is the first portion of your essay, it should paint a picture where the readers know exactly what’s ahead of them.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: An apt introduction can be covered in 2 to 3 paragraphs (Look at the introduction on this article if you need proof).

Since your focus is on “food” and “diaspora”, your introductory paragraph can dwell into a little history of the relationship between the two and the importance of food in community building.]

This is the most extensive part of any essay. It is also the one that takes up the most number of words. All the research and note-making which you did was for this part. The main body of your essay is where you put all the knowledge you gathered into words. When you are writing the body, your aim should be to make it flow, which means that all paragraphs should have a connection between them. When read in its entirety, the paragraphs should sing together rather than float all around.

The main body is mostly around 4 to 6 paragraphs long. A sociological essay is filled with debates, theories, theorists, and examples. When writing the main body it is best to target making one or two paragraphs about the same revolving theme. When you shift to the other theme, it is best to connect it with the theme you discussed in the paragraph right above it to form a connection between the two. If you are dividing your essay into various sub-themes then the best way to correlate them is starting each new subtheme by reflecting on the last main arguments presented in the theme before it. To make a sociological essay even more enriching, include examples that exemplify the theoretical concepts better.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Though there is no word limit to the length of the paragraphs, if you keep one paragraph between 100 to 200 words, it makes the essay look more organized.

The main body can here be divided into the categories which you formed during the first step of making the rough outline. Therefore, your essay could have 3 to 4 sub-sections discussing different themes such as: Food and Media, Caste and Class influence food practices, Politics of Food, Gendered Lens, etc.]

This is the section where you end your essay. But ending the essay does not mean that you lose your flair in conclusion. A conclusion is an essential part of any essay because it sums up everything you just wrote. Your conclusion should be similar to a summary of your essay. You can include shortened versions of the various arguments you have referred to above in the main body, or it can raise questions for further research, and it can also provide solutions if your topic seeks one. Hence, a conclusion is a part where you get the last chance to tell your reader what you are saying through your article.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: As the introduction, the conclusion is smaller compared to the main body. Keep your conclusion within the range of 1 to 2 paragraphs.

Your conclusion should again reiterate all the main arguments provided by you throughout the essay. Therefore it should bind together everything you have written starting from your introduction to all the debates and examples you have cited.]

Step 6: Citation and Referencing

This is the most academic part of your sociological essay. Any academic essay should be free of plagiarism. But how can one avoid plagiarism when their essay is based on research which was originally done by others. The solution for this is to give credit to the original author for their work. In the world of academia, this is done through the processes of Citation and Referencing (sometimes also called Bibliography). Citation is done within/in-between the text, where you directly or indirectly quote the original text. Whereas, Referencing or Bibliography is done at the end of an essay where you give resources of the books or articles which you have quoted in your essay at various points. Both these processes are done so that the reader can search beyond your essay to get a better grasp of the topic.

There are many different styles of citations and you can determine which you want to follow. Some of the most common styles of citation and referencing are MLA, APA, and Chicago style. If you are working on Google Docs or Word then the application makes your work easier because they help you curate your citations. There are also various online tools that can make citing references far easier, faster, and adhering to citation guidelines, such as an APA generator. This can save you a lot of time when it comes to referencing, and makes the task far more manageable.

How to add citations in Google Doc: Tools → Citation

How to add citations in Word Document: References → Insert Citations

But for those who want to cite manually, this is the basic format to follow:

Author’s Name with Surname mentioned first, then initials
Article’s Title in single or double quotes
Journal Title in Italics
Volume, issue number
Year of Publication

Example: Syrkin, A. 1984. “Notes on the Buddha’s Threats in the Dīgha Nikāya ”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies , vol. 7(1), pp.147-58.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Always make sure that your Bibliography/References are alphabetically ordered based on the first alphabet of the surname of the author and NOT numbered or bulleted.

Phase III: Editing

Step 7: edit/review your essay.

The truth of academic writing is that it can never be written in one go. You need to write, rewrite, and revisit your material more than once. Once you have written the first draft of your essay, do not revise it immediately. Leave it for some time, at least for four hours. Then revisit your essay and edit it based on 3 criteria. The first criteria you need to recheck for is any grammatical and/or spelling mistakes. The second criteria are to check the arguments you have posed and if the examples you have cited correlate or not. The final criteria are to read the essay as a reader and read it objectively.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: The more you edit the better results you get. But we think that your 3rd draft is the magic draft. Draft 1: rough essay, Draft 2: edited essay, Draft 3: final essay.

Hello! Eiti is a budding sociologist whose passion lies in reading, researching, and writing. She thrives on coffee, to-do lists, deadlines, and organization. Eiti's primary interest areas encompass food, gender, and academia.

Center for Cultural Sociology

The strong program in cultural sociology, by jeffrey c. alexander and philip smith.

This essay has appeared in The Handbook of Sociological Theory , edited by Jonathan Turner (New York: Kluwer, 2001), and in Alexander’s The Meanings of Social Life (New York: Oxford, 2004).

Page Contents

Introduction
The Fault Line and its Consequences
Culture in Social Theory: From the Classics to the 1960s
Weak Programs in Contemporary Cultural Theory
Steps Toward a Strong Program
Conclusions

1. Introduction

Throughout the world, culture has been doggedly pushing its way onto the center stage of debates not only in sociological theory and research but also throughout the human sciences. As with any profound intellectual shift, this has been a process characterized by leads and lags. In the UK, for example, culture has been making headway since the early 1970s. In the USA, the tide began to turn unmistakably only in the mid-1980s. In continental Europe, it is possible to argue that culture never really went away. Despite this ongoing revival of interest, however, there is anything but consensus among sociologists specializing in the area about just what the concept means and how it relates to the discipline as traditionally understood. These differences of opinion can be usefully explained only partly as empirical reflections of geographical, sociopolitical, or national traditions. More importantly, they are manifestations of deeper contradictions relating to axiomatic and foundational logics in the theory of culture. Pivotal to all these disputes is the issue of ‘cultural autonomy’ (Alexander l990, Smith 1998a). In this paper, we employ the concept of cultural autonomy to explore and evaluate the competing understandings of culture currently available to social theory. We suggest that fundamental flaws characterize most of these models, and we argue for an alternative approach that can be broadly understood as a kind of structural hermeneutics.

Lévi-Strauss (1974) famously wrote that the study of culture should be like the study of geology. According to this dictum, analysis should account for surface variation in terms of deeper generative principles, just as geomorphology explains the distribution of plants, the shape of hills, and the drainage patterns followed by rivers in terms of underlying geology. In this essay, we intend to apply this principle to the enterprise of contemporary cultural sociology in a way that is both reflexive and diagnostic. Our aim is not so much to review the field and document its diversity — although we will indeed conduct such a review — as to engage in a seismographic enterprise that will trace a fault line running right through it. Understanding this fault line and its theoretical implications allows us not only to reduce complexity, but also to transcend the kind of purely taxonomic mode of discourse that so often plagues handbook articles of the present kind. This seismographic principle will provide a powerful tool for getting to the heart of current controversies and understanding the slippages and instabilities that undermine so much of the territory of cultural inquiry. Contra Lévi-Strauss, however, we do not see our structural enquiry as a disinterested scientific exercise. Our discourse here is openly polemical, our language slightly colored. Rather than affecting neutrality, we are going to propose one particular style of theory as offering the best way forward for cultural sociology.

2. The Fault Line and its Consequences

The fault line at the heart of current debates lies between “cultural sociology” and the ’sociology of culture.’ To believe in the possibility of a “cultural sociology” is to subscribe to the idea that every action, no matter how instrumental, reflexive or coerced vis-a-vis its external environments (Alexander 1988), is embedded to some extent in a horizon of affect and meaning. This internal environment is one towards which the actor can never be fully instrumental or reflexive. It is, rather, an ideal resource that partially enables and partially constrains action, providing for both routine and creativity, and allowing for the reproduction and transformation of structure (Sewell 1992). Similarly, a belief in the possibility of a “cultural sociology” implies that institutions, no matter how impersonal or technocratic, have an ideal foundation that fundamentally shapes their organization and goals and provides the structured context for debates over their legitimation. When described in the folk idiom of positivism, one could say that the more traditional “sociology of culture” approach treats culture as a dependent variable, whereas in “cultural sociology” it is an ‘independent variable’ that possesses a relative autonomy in shaping actions and institutions, providing inputs every bit as vital as more material or instrumental forces.

Viewed from a distance, the “sociology of culture” offers the same kind of landscape as “cultural sociology.” There is a common conceptual repertoire of terms like values, codes and discourses. Both traditions argue that culture is something important in society, something that repays careful sociological study. Both speak of the recent ‘cultural turn’ as a pivotal moment in social theory. But these resemblances are only superficial. At the structural level we find deep antinomies. To speak of the “sociology of culture” is to suggest that culture is something to be explained — by something else entirely separated from the domain of meaning itself. To speak of the sociology of culture is to suggest that explanatory power lies in the study of the “hard” variables of social structure, such that structured sets of meanings become superstructures and ideologies driven by more these more “real” and tangible social forces. In this approach, culture becomes defined as a “soft,” not really independent variable: it is more or less confined to participating in the reproduction of social relations.

A notion that has emerged from the extraordinary new field of science studies is the sociologically inspired idea of the “strong program” (e.g. Bloor 1976; Latour and Woolgar 1986). The argument here is that scientific ideas are cultural and linguistic conventions as much as they are simply the results of other, more ‘objective’ actions and procedures. Rather than only “findings” that hold up a mirror to nature (Rorty l979), science is understood as a collective representation, a language game that reflects a prior pattern of sense-making activity. In the context of the sociology of science, the concept of the strong program, in other words, suggests a radical uncoupling of cognitive content from natural determination. We would like to suggest that a strong program might also be emerging in the sociological study of culture. Such an initiative argues for a sharp analytical uncoupling of culture from social structure — which is what we mean by cultural autonomy (Alexander l988, Kane 1992). As compared with the sociology of culture, cultural sociology depends on establishing this autonomy, and it is only via such a strong program that sociologists can illuminate the powerful role that culture plays in shaping social life. By contrast, the “sociology of culture” offers a ‘weak program’ in which culture is a feeble and ambivalent variable. Borrowing from Basil Bernstein (1971), we might say that the strong program is powered by an elaborated theoretical code, whereas the weak program is limited by a restricted code that reflects the inhibitions and habitus of traditional, institutionally oriented social science.

Commitment to a cultural-sociological theory that recognizes cultural autonomy is the single most important quality of a strong program. There are, however, two other defining characteristics that must drive any such approach, characteristics that can be described as methodological. One is the commitment to hermeneutically reconstructing social texts in a rich and persuasive way. What is needed here is a Geertzian ‘thick description’ of the codes, narratives and symbols that create the textured webs of social meaning. The contrast here is to the ‘thin description’ that typically characterizes studies inspired by the weak program, in which meaning is either simply read off from social structure or reduced to abstracted descriptions of reified values, norms, ideology, or fetishism. The weak program fails to fill these empty vessels with the rich wine of symbolic significance. The philosophical principles for this hermeneutic position were articulated by Dilthey (1962), and it seems to us that his powerful methodological injunction to look at the ‘inner meaning’ of social structures has never been surpassed. Rather than inventing a new approach, the deservedly influential cultural analyses of Clifford Geertz can be seen as providing the most powerful contemporary application of Dilthey’s ideas.

In methodological terms, the achievement of thick description requires the bracketing out of wider, non-symbolic social relations. This bracketing out, analogous to Husserl’s phenomenological reduction, allows the reconstruction of the pure cultural text, the theoretical and philosophical rationale for which Ricoeur (1971) supplied in his important argument for the necessary linkage between hermeneutics and semiotics. This reconstruction can be thought of as creating, or mapping out, the ‘culture structures’ (Rambo and Chan 1990) that form one dimension of social life. It is the notion of the culture structure as a social text that allows the well-developed conceptual resources of literary studies — from Aristotle to such contemporary figures as Frye (l957) and Brooks (l985) — to be brought into social science. Only after the analytical bracketing demanded by hermeneutics has been completed — after the internal pattern of meaning has been reconstructed — should social science move from analytic to concrete autonomy (Kane 1992). Only after having created the analytically autonomous culture object does it become possible to discover in what ways culture intersects with other social forces, such as power and instrumental reason in the concrete social world.

This brings us to the third characteristic of a strong program. Far from being ambiguous or shy about specifying just how culture makes a difference, far from speaking in terms of abstract systemic logics as causal processes (à la Lévi-Strauss), we suggest that a strong program tries to anchor causality in proximate actors and agencies, specifying in detail just how culture interferes with and directs what really happens. By contrast, as E.P. Thompson (1978) demonstrated, weak programs typically hedge and stutter on this issue. They tend to develop elaborate and abstract terminological (de)fences that provide the illusion of specifying concrete mechanisms as well as the illusion of having solved intractable dilemmas of freedom and determination. As they say in the fashion business, however, the quality is in the detail. We would argue that it is only by resolving issues of detail — who says what, why, and to what effect — that cultural analysis can become plausible according to the criteria of a social science. We do not believe, in other words, that hard headed and skeptical demands for causal clarity should be confined to empiricists or to those who are obsessively concerned with power and social structure. These criteria also apply to a cultural sociology.

The idea of a strong program carries with it the suggestions of an agenda. In what follows we discuss this agenda. We look first at the history of social theory, showing how this agenda failed to emerge until the 1960s. We go on to explore several contemporary traditions in the social scientific analysis of culture. We suggest that, despite appearances, each comprises a weak program, failing to meet in one way or another the defining criteria we have set forth here. We conclude by pointing to an emerging tradition of cultural sociology, most of it American, which in our view establishes the parameters of a strong program.

3. Culture in Social Theory: From the Classics to the 1960s

For most of its history, sociology, both as theory and method, has suffered from a numbness towards meaning. Culturally unmusical scholars have depicted human action as insipidly or brutally instrumental, as if it were constructed without reference to the internal environments of actions that are established by the moral structures of sacred-good and profane-evil (Brooks 1985) and by the narrative teleologies that create chronology (White 1987) and define dramatic meaning (Frye 1957). Caught up in the ongoing crises of modernity, the classical founders of the discipline believed that epochal historical transformations had emptied the world of meaning. Capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, anomie and egoism — these core processes were held to create confused and dominated individuals, to shatter the possibilities of a meaningful telos, to eliminate the ordering power of the sacred and profane. Only occasionally does a glimmer of a strong program come through in this classical period. Weber’s religious sociology, and most particularly his essay ‘Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions’ (l958; cf. Alexander 1988) suggested that the quest for salvation was a universal cultural need whose various solutions had forcefully shaped organizational and motivational dynamics in world civilizations. Durkheim’s later sociology, as articulated in critical passages from The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (l968) and in a posthumously recovered course of lectures (Alexander l982), suggested that even contemporary social life had an ineluctable spiritual-cum-symbolic component. While plagued by the weak program symptom of causal ambivalence, the young Marx’s writings on species-being also forcefully pointed to the manner in which non-material forces tied humans together in common projects and destinies. This early suggestion that alienation is not only the reflection of material relationships adumbrated the critical chapter in Capital ‘The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof’ which has so often served as an unstable bridge from structural to cultural Marxism in the present day.

The communist and fascist revolutionary upheavals that marked the first half of this century were premised on the same kind of widespread fear that modernity had eroded the possibility of meaning-full sociality. Communist and fascist thinkers attempted to alchemize what they saw as the barren codes of bourgeois civil society into new, re-sacralized forms that could accommodate technology and reason within wider, encompassing spheres of meaning (Smith 1998c). In the calm that descended on the postwar period, Talcott Parsons and his colleagues, motivated by entirely different ideological ambitions, also began to think that modernity did not have to be understood in such a corrosive way. Beginning from an analytical rather than eschatological premise, Parsons theorised that ‘values’ had to be central to actions and institutions if a society was to be able to function as a coherent enterprise. The result was a theory that seemed to many of Parsons’ modern contemporaries to exhibit an idealizing culturalist bias (Lockwood 1992). We ourselves would suggest an opposite reading.

From a strong program viewpoint, Parsonian functionalism can be taken as insufficiently cultural, as denuded of musicality. In the absence of a musical moment where the social text is reconstructed in its pure form, Parsons’ work lacks a powerful hermeneutic dimension. While Parsons theorized that values were important, he did not explain the nature of values themselves. Instead of engaging in the social imaginary, diving into the febrile codes and narratives that make up a social text, he and his functionalist colleagues observed action from the outside and induced the existence of guiding valuations using categorical frameworks supposedly generated by functional necessity. Without a counter-weight of thick description, we are left with a position in which culture has autonomy only in an abstract and analytic sense. When we turn to the empirical world, we find that functionalist logic ties up cultural form with social function and institutional dynamics to such an extent that it is difficult to imagine where culture’s autonomy might lie in any concrete setting. The result was an ingenious systems theory that remains too hermeneutically feeble, too distant on the issue of autonomy to offer much to a strong program. Flawed as the functionalist project was, the alternatives were far worse.

The world in the 1960s was a place of conflict and turmoil. When the Cold War turned hot, macro social theory shifted towards the analysis of power from a one-sided and anti-cultural stance. Thinkers with an interest in macro-historical process approached meaning through its contexts, treating it as a product of some supposedly more ‘real’ social force — when they spoke of it at all. For scholars like Barrington Moore and C. Wright-Mills and later followers such as Charles Tilly, Randall Collins and Michael Mann culture must be thought of in terms of self-interested ideologies, group process and networks rather than in terms of texts. Meanwhile, during the same period, micro-sociology emphasized the radical reflexivity of actors. For such writers as Blumer, Goffman and Garfinkel, culture forms an external environment in relation to which actors formulate lines of action that are ‘accountable’ or give off a good ‘impression’. We find precious little indication in this tradition of the power of the symbolic to shape interactions from within, as normative precepts or narratives that carry an internalized moral force.

Yet during this same period of the 1960s, at the very moment when the halfway cultural approach of functionalism was disappearing from American sociology, theories that spoke forcefully of a social text began to have enormous influence in France. Through creative misreadings of the structural linguistics of Saussure and Jacobson, and bearing a (carefully hidden) influence from the late Durkheim and Marcel Mauss, thinkers like Lévi-Strauss, Roland Barthes and the early Michel Foucault created a revolution in the human sciences by insisting on the textuality of institutions and the discursive nature of human action. When viewed from a contemporary strong program perspective, such approaches remain too abstracted; they also typically fail to specify agency and causal dynamics. In these failings they resemble Parsons’ functionalism. Nevertheless, in providing hermeneutic and theoretical resources to establish the autonomy of culture, they constituted a turning point for the construction of a strong program. In the next section, we discuss how this project has been derailed by a succession of weak programs that continue to dominate research on culture and society today.

4. Weak Programs in Contemporary Cultural Theory

One of the first research traditions to apply French nouvelle vague theorising outside of the hothouse Parisian environment was the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, also known as the Birmingham School. The master-stroke of the school was to meld ideas about cultural texts onto the Neo-Marxist understanding that Gramsci established about the role played by cultural hegemony in maintaining social relations. This allowed exciting new ideas about how culture worked to be applied in a flexible way to a variety of settings — all the while without letting go of comforting old ideas about class domination. The result was a “sociology of culture” analysis which tied cultural forms to social structure as manifestations of ‘hegemony’ (if the analyst didn’t like what they saw) or ‘resistance’ (if they did). At its best, this mode of sociology could be brilliantly illuminating. Paul Willis’s (1977) ethnographic study of working class school kids was outstanding in its reconstruction of the zeitgeist of the ‘lads’. Stuart Hall et al.’s (1978) classic study of the moral panic over mugging in 1970s Britain, Policing the Crisis , managed in its early pages to decode the discourse of urban decay and racism that underpinned an authoritarian crackdown. In these ways, Birmingham work approached a “strong program” in its ability to recreate social texts and lived meanings. Where it fails, however, is in the area of cultural autonomy (Sherwood, et al., 1993). Notwithstanding attempts to move beyond the classical Marxist position, neo-Gramscian theorizing exhibits the tell-tale weak program ambiguities over the role of culture that plague the luminous Prison Notebooks themselves. Terms like ‘articulation’ and ‘anchoring’ suggest contingency in the play of culture. But this contingency is often reduced to instrumental reason (in the case of elites ‘articulating’ a discourse for hegemonic purposes) or to some kind of ambiguous systemic or structural causation (in the case of discourses being ‘anchored’ in relations of power).

Failure to grasp the nettle of cultural autonomy and quit the “sociology of culture”-driven project of ‘Western Marxism’ (Anderson 1979) contributed to a fateful ambiguity over the mechanisms through which culture links with social structure and action. There is no clearer example of this latter process than in Policing the Crisis itself. After building up a detailed picture of the mugging panic and its symbolic resonances, the book lurches into a sequence of insistent claims that the moral panic is linked to the economic logic of capitalism and its proximate demise; that it functions to legitimate law and order politics on streets that harbor latent revolutionary tendencies. Yet the concrete mechanisms through which the incipient crisis of capitalism (has it arrived yet?) are translated into the concrete decisions of judges, parliamentarians, newspaper editors and police officers on the beat are never spelled out. The result is a theory which, despite a critical edge and superior hermeneutic capabilities to classical functionalism, curiously resembles Parsons in its tendency to invoke abstracted influences and processes as adequate explanation for empirical social actions.

In this respect, by contrast to the Birmingham School the work of Pierre Bourdieu has real merits. While many Birmingham-style analyses seem to lack any clear application of method, Bourdieu’s oeuvre is resolutely grounded in middle range empirical research projects of both a qualitative and quantitative nature. His inferences and claims are more modest and less manifestly tendentious. In his best work, moreover, such as the description of a Kabyle house or a French peasant dance (Bourdieu 1962, 1977), Bourdieu’s thick description abilities show that he has the musicality to recognize and decode cultural texts that is at least equal to that of the Birmingham ethnographers. Despite these qualities, Bourdieu’s research can also best be described as a weak program dedicated to the sociology of culture rather than cultural sociology. Once they have penetrated the thickets of terminological ambiguity that always mark out a weak program, commentators agree that in Bourdieu’s framework culture has a role in ensuring the reproduction of inequality rather than permitting innovation (Alexander 1995, Honneth 1986, Sewell 1992). As a result culture, working through habitus, operates more as a dependent variable than an independent one. It is a gearbox, not an engine. When it comes to specifying exactly how the process of reproduction takes place, Bourdieu is vague. Habitus produces a sense of style, ease and taste. Yet to know just how these influence stratification something more would be needed – a detailed study f concrete social settings where decisions are made and social reproduction ensured (cf. Lamont 1992). We need to know more about the thinking of gatekeepers in job interviews and publishing houses, the impact of classroom dynamics on learning or the logic of the citation process. Without this ‘missing link,’ we are left with a theory that points to circumstantial homologies but cannot produce a smoking gun.

Bourdieu’s understanding of the links of culture to power also falls short of demanding strong program ideals. For Bourdieu, stratification systems make use of status cultures in competition with each other in various fields. The semantic content of these cultures has little to do with how society is organized. Meaning has no wider impact. While Weber, for example, argued that forms of eschatology have determinate outputs on the way that social life is patterned, for Bourdieu cultural content is arbitrary and without import. In his formulation there will always be systems of stratification defined by class, and all that is important for dominant groups is to have their cultural codes embraced as legitimate. In the final analysis, what we have here is a Veblenesque vision in which culture provides a strategic resource for actors, an external environment of action, rather than a text that shapes the world in an immanent fashion. People use culture, but they don’t seem to really to care about it.

Michel Foucault’s works, and the poststructural and postmodern theoretical program they have initiated, provides the third weak program we discuss here. Despite its brilliance, what we find here, yet again, is a body of work wrought with the tortured contradictions that indicate a failure to grasp the nettle of a strong program. On the one hand, Foucault’s (1970, 1972) major theoretical texts, The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Order of Things , provide important groundwork for a strong program with their assertion that discourses operate in arbitrary ways to classify the world and shape knowledge formation. His empirical applications of this theory should also be praised for assembling rich historical data in a way which approximates to the reconstruction of a social text. So far, so good. Unfortunately, there is another hand at work. The crux of the issue is Foucault’s genealogical method; his insistence that power and knowledge are fused in power/knowledge. The result is a reductionist line of reasoning akin to functionalism (Brenner 1994), where discourses are homologous with institutions, flows of power, and technologies. Contingency of those texts. This binding of discourse to social structure, in other words, leaves no room for understanding how an autonomous cultural realm hinders or assists actors in judgement, critique or in the provision of transcendental goals that texture social life. Foucault’s world is one where Nietzsche’s prison house of language finds its material expression with such force that no room is left for cultural autonomy, and by implication, the autonomy of action. Responding to this sort of criticism, Foucault attempted to theorise self and resistance in his later work. But he did so in an ad hoc way, seeing acts of resistance as random dysfunctions (Brenner 1994: 698) or unexplained self-assertions. These late texts do not work through the ways that cultural frames might permit ‘outsiders’ to produce and sustain opposition to power.

In the currently most influential stream of work to come out of the Foucaultian stable, we can see that the latent tension between the Foucault of the Archaeology and Foucault’s genealogical avatar has been resolved decisively in favor of an anti-cultural mode of theory. The proliferating body of work on ‘governmentality’ centers on the control of populations (Miller and Rose 1990; Rose 1993), but does so through an elaboration of the role of administrative techniques and expert systems. To be sure, there is acknowledgment that ‘language’ is important, that government has a ‘discursive character’. This sounds promising, but on closer inspection we find that ‘language’ and ‘discourse’ boil down to dry modes of technical communication (graphs, statistics, reports etc.) that operate as technologies to allow ‘evaluation, calculation, intervention’ at a distance by institutions and bureaucracies (Miller and Rose 1990: 7). There is little work here to recapture the more textual nature of political and administrative discourses. No effort is made to go beyond a ‘thin description’ and identify the broader symbolic patterns, the hot, affective criteria through which policies of control and coordination are appraised by citizens and elites alike. Here the project of governmentality falls short of the standards set by Hall et al., which at least managed to conjure up the emotive spirit of populism in Heath era Britain.

Research on the ‘production and reception of culture’ marks the fourth weak program we will identify. Unlike those we have just discussed, it is one that lacks theoretical bravura and charismatic leadership. For the most part, it is characterized by the unsung virtues of intellectual modesty, diligence, clarity and a studious attention to questions of method. Its numerous proponents make sensible, middle range empirical studies of the circumstances in which ‘culture’ is produced and consumed (for overview see Crane 1992). For this reason, it has become particularly powerful in the United States, where these kinds of properties assimilate best to professional norms within sociology. The great strength of this approach is that it offers explicit causal links between culture and social structure, thus avoiding the pitfalls of indeterminacy and obfuscation that have plagued more theoretically ambitious understandings. Unfortunately, this intellectual honesty usually serves only to broadcast a reductionist impulse that remains latent in the other approaches we have examined. The insistent aim of study after study (e.g., Blau 1989, Peterson l985) seems to be to explain away culture as the product of sponsoring institutions, elites or interests. The quest for profit, power, prestige, or ideological control sits at the core of cultural production. Reception, meanwhile, is relentlessly determined by social location. Audience ethnographies, for example, are undertaken to document the decisive impact of class, race and gender on the ways that television programs are understood. Here we find the “sociology of culture” writ large. The aim of analysis is not so much to uncover the impact of meaning on social life and identity formation, but rather to see how social life and identities constrain potential meanings.

While the sociological credentials of such an undertaking are to be applauded, something more is needed if the autonomy of culture is to be recognized — viz. a robust understanding of the codes that are at play in the cultural objects under consideration. Only when these are taken into account can cultural ‘products’ be seen to have internal cultural inputs and constraints. However, in the production of culture approach such efforts at hermeneutic understanding are rare. All too often meaning remains a sort of black box, with analytical attention centered on the circumstances of cultural production and reception. When meanings and discourses are explored, it is usually in order to talk through some kind of fit between cultural content and the social needs and actions of specific producing and receiving groups. Wendy Griswold (1983), for example, shows how the trickster figure was transformed with the emergence of Restoration drama. In the medieval morality play, the figure of ‘vice’ was evil. He was later to morph into the attractive, quick thinking ‘gallant’. The new character was one that could appeal to an audience of young, disinherited men who had migrated to the city and had to depend on their wits for social advancement. Similarly, Robert Wuthnow (1989) argues that the ideologies of the Reformation germinated and took root as an appropriate response to a particular set of social circumstances. He persuasively demonstrates that new binary oppositions emerged in theological discourse — for example those between a corrupt Catholicism and a pure Protestantism. These refracted the politics and social dislocations underlying religious and secular struggles in 16th century Europe.

We have some concerns about singling such work out for criticism, for they are among the best of the genre and approximate to the sort of thick description we advocate. There can be little doubt that Griswold and Wuthnow correctly understand a need to study meaning in cultural analysis. However, they fail to systematically connect its exploration with the problematic of cultural autonomy. For all their attention to cultural messages and historical continuities, they do little to reduce our fear that there is an underlying reductionism in such analysis. The overall effect is to understand meanings as infinitely malleable in response to social settings. A more satisfying approach to Griswold’s data, for example, would recognize the dramatic narratives as inevitably structured by constraining cultural codes relating to plot and character, for it is the combinations between these make any kind of drama a possibility. Similarly, Wuthnow should have been much more sensitive to the understanding of binary opposition advocated by Saussure: it is a precondition of discourse rather than merely a description of its historically specific form. And so to our reading, such efforts as Griswold’s and Wuthnow’s represent narrowly lost opportunities for a decisive demonstration cultural autonomy as a product of culture-structure. In the final section of this chapter, we look for signs of a structuralist hermeneutics that can perhaps better accomplish this theoretical goal.

5. Steps Towards a Strong Program

All things considered, the sociological investigation of culture remains dominated by weak programs characterized by some combination of hermeneutic inadequacy, ambivalence over cultural autonomy, and poorly specified, abstract mechanisms for grounding culture in concrete social process. In this final section, we wish to discuss recent trends in cultural sociology where there are signs that a bona fide strong program might finally be emerging.

A first step in the construction of a strong program is the hermeneutic project of ‘thick description’ itself, which we have already invoked in a positive way. Drawing on Paul Ricoeur and Kenneth Burke, Clifford Geertz (1973) has worked harder than any other person to show that culture is a rich and complex text, with a subtle patterning influence on social life. The result is a compelling vision of culture as webs of significance that guide action. Yet while superior to the other approaches we have considered, this position too has its flaws. Nobody could accuse Geertz of hermeneutic inadequacy or of neglecting cultural autonomy, yet on close inspection his enormously influential concept of thick description seems rather elusive. The precise mechanisms through which webs of meaning influence action on the ground are rarely specified with any clarity. Culture seems to take on the qualities of a transcendental actor (Alexander 1987). So in terms of the third criterion of a strong program that we have specified — causal specificity — the program initiated by Geertz runs into trouble. One reason is the later Geertz’s reluctance to connect his interpretive analyses to any kind of general theory. There is a relentless emphasis on the way that the local explains the local. He insists that societies, like texts, contain their own explanation. Writing the local, as a consequence, comes into play as a substitute for theory construction. The focus here is on a novelistic recapitulation of details, with the aim of analysis being to accumulate these and fashion a model of the cultural text within a particular setting. Such a rhetorical turn has made it difficult to draw a line between anthropology and literature, or even travel writing. This in turn has made Geertz’s project vulnerable to takeover bids. Most notably, during the 1980s the idea that society could be read like a text was taken over by poststructural writers who argued that culture was little more than contending texts or ‘representations’ (Clifford 1988) and that ethnography was either allegory, fantasy or biography. The aim of analysis now shifted to the exposition of professional representations and the techniques and power relations behind them. The resulting program has been one that has told us a good deal about academic writing, ethnographic museum displays and so on. It helps us to understand the discursive conditions of cultural production but has almost given up on the task of explaining ordinary social life or the possibility of a general understanding. Not surprisingly, Geertz enthusiastically devoted himself to the new cause, writing an eloquent text on the tropes through which anthoropologists construct their ethnographic authority (Geertz 1988). As the text replaces the tribe as the object of analysis, cultural theory begins to look more and more like critical narcissism and less and less like the explanatory discipline that Dilthey so vividly imagined.

Inadequate as it may be, the work of Geertz provides a springboard for a strong program in cultural analysis. It indicates the need for the explication of meaning to be at the center of the intellectual agenda and offers a vigorous affirmation of cultural autonomy. What is missing, however, is a theory of culture that has autonomy built into the very fabric of meaning as well as a more robust understanding of social structure and institutional dynamics. We suggest, following Saussure, that a more structural approach towards culture helps with the first point. In addition, it initiates the movement towards general theory that Geertz avoids. In short, it can recognize the autonomy and the centrality of meaning, but does not develop a hermeneutics of the particular at the expense of a hermeneutics of the universal. We return to the promise of such a structural hermeneutics below.

As the eighties turned into the nineties, we saw the revival of ‘culture’ in American sociology and the declining prestige of anti-cultural forms of macro and micro thought. This strand of work, with its developing strong program characteristics, offers the best hope for a truly cultural sociology finally to emerge as a major research tradition. To be sure a number of weak programs organized around the “sociology of culture” remain powerful, perhaps dominant, in the U.S. context. One thinks in particular of studies of the production, consumption and distribution of culture which (as we have seen) focus on organizational and institutional contexts rather than content and meanings (e.g. Blau 1989; Peterson 1985). One also thinks of work inspired by the western Marxist tradition that attempts to link cultural change to the workings of capital, especially in the context of urban form (e.g. Davis 1992; Gottdeiner 1995). The neo-institutionalists (see DiMaggio and Powell 1991) see culture as significant, but only as a legitimating constraint, only as an external environment of action, not as a lived text as Geertz might (see Friedland and Alford 1991). And of, course, there are numerous U.S.-based apostles of British Cultural Studies (e.g. Fiske 1987; Grossberg, Nelson and Treichler 1991), who combine virtuoso hermeneutic readings with thin, stratification-oriented forms of quasi-materialist reduction. Yet, it is equally important to recognize that there has emerged a current of work that gives to meaning-full and autonomous texts a much more central place (for a sample see Smith 1998b). These contemporary sociologists are the ‘children’ of an earlier generation of culturalist thinkers — Geertz, Bellah (1970; cf. Alexander and Sherwood forthcoming), Turner (1974) and Sahlins (l976) foremost among them — who wrote against the grain of sixties and seventies reductionism and attempted to demonstrate the textuality of social life and the necessary autonomy of cultural forms. In contemporary scholarship, we are seeing efforts to align these two axioms of a strong program with the third imperative of identifying concrete mechanisms through which culture does its work.

Responses to the question of transmission mechanisms have been decisively shaped, in a positive direction, by the American pragmatist and empiricist traditions. The influence of structural linguistics on European scholarship sanctioned a kind of cultural theory that paid little attention to the relationship between culture and action (unless tempered by the dangerously ‘humanist’ discourses of existentialism or phenomenology). Simultaneously, the philosophical formation of writers like Althusser and Foucault permitted a dense and tortured kind of writing, where issues of causality and autonomy could be circled around in endless, elusive spirals of words. By contrast, American pragmatism has provided the seedbed for a discourse where clarity is rewarded; where it is believed that complex language games can be reduced to simpler statements; where it is argued that actors have to play some role in translating cultural structures into concrete actions and institutions. While the influence of pragmatism has reached American cultural sociologists in a diffuse way, its most direct inheritance can be seen in the work of Ann Swidler (1986), William Sewell (1992), Mustafa Emirbayer and his collaborators (e.g. Emirbayer and Goodwin 1996; Emirbayer and Mische 1998), and Gary Alan Fine (1987), where efforts are made to relate culture to action without recourse to the materialistic reductionism of Bourdieu’s praxis theory.

Other forces have also played a role in shaping the emerging strong program in American cultural sociology. Because these are more closely related than the pragmatists to our argument that a structuralist hermeneutics is the best way forward, we will expand on them here. Pivotal to all such work is an effort to understand culture not just as a text (à la Geertz) but rather as a text that is underpinned by signs and symbols that are in patterned relationships to each other. Writing in the first decades of the 20th century, Durkheim and his students such as Hertz and Mauss understood that culture was a classification system consisting of binary oppositions. At the same time Saussure was developing his structural linguistics, arguing that meanings were generated by means of patterned relationships between concepts and sounds. A few decades later, Lévi-Strauss was to pull these linguistic and sociological approaches to classification together in his pioneering studies of myth, kinship, and totemism. The great virtue of this synthesis was that it provided a powerful way for understanding the autonomy of culture. Because meanings are arbitrary and are generated from within the sign system, they enjoy a certain autonomy from social determination — just as the language of a country cannot be predicted from the knowledge that it is capitalist or socialist, industrial or agrarian. Culture now becomes a structure as objective as any more material social fact.

With the themeatics of the ‘autonomy of culture’ taking center stage in the 1980s, there was a vigorous appreciation of the work of the late-Durkheim, with his insistence on the cultural as well as ‘functional’ origins of solidarity (for a review of this literature see Emirbayer 1996, Smith and Alexander 1996). The felicitous, but not altogether accidental, congruence between Durkheim’s opposition of the sacred and the profane and structuralist theories of sign-systems enabled insights from French theory to be translated into a distinctively sociological discourse and tradition, much of it concerned with the impact of cultural codes and codings. Numerous studies of boundary maintenance, for example, reflect this trend (for a sample see Lamont and Fournier 1993), and it is instructive to contrast them with more reductionist weak program alternatives about processes of ‘Othering’. Emerging from this tradition has been a focus on the binary opposition as a key tool for asserting the autonomy of cultural forms (see Alexander and Smith 1993, Smith l991, Edles l998, Magnuson l997).

Further inspirations for structural hermeneutics within a strong program for cultural theory have come from anthropology. The new breed of symbolic anthropologists — in addition to Geertz, most notably Mary Douglas (l966), Victor Turner (l974) and Marshall Sahlins (l976, l981) — took on board the message of structuralism, but tried to move it in new directions.

Postmodernisms and post-structuralisms have also played their role, but in an optimistic guise. The knot between power and knowledge that has stunted European weak programs has been loosened by American postmodern theorists like Steven Seidman (1988). For postmodern pragmatistic philosophers like Richard Rorty (e.g. 1989), language tends to be seen as a creative force for the social imaginary rather than as Nietzsche’s prison house. As a result, discourses and actors are provided with greater autonomy from power in the construction of identities.

These trends are well known. But there is also an interdisciplinary dark horse to which we wish to draw attention. In philosophy and literary studies, there has been growing interest in narrative and genre theory. Cultural sociologists such as Robin Wagner-Pacifici (l986, l994, 2000, with Barry Schwartz 1991), Margaret Somers (1995), Wendy Griswold (1983), Ronald Jacobs (1996, 2000), Agnes Ku (1999), William Gibson (l994) and the authors of this article are now reading literary theorists like Northrup Frye, Peter Brooks, and Fredric Jameson, historians like Hayden White and Aristotelian philosophers like Ricoeur and MacIntyre (cf. Lara l998). The appeal of this theory lies partially in its affinity for a textual understanding of social life. The emphasis on teleology carries with it some of the interpretive power of the classical hermeneutic model. This impulse towards reading culture as a text is complemented, in such narrative work, by an interest in developing formal models that can be applied across different comparative and historical cases. In other words, narrative forms such as the morality play or melodrama, tragedy and comedy can be understood as ‘types’ that carry with them particular implications for social life. The morality play, for example, does not seem to be conducive to compromise (Wagner-Pacifici 1986, l994). Tragedy can give rise to fatalism (Jacobs 1996) and withdrawal from civic engagement, but it can also promote moral responsibility (Alexander forthcoming, Eyerman forthcoming). Comedy and romance, by contrast, generate optimism and social inclusion (Jacobs and Smith 1997, Smith 1994). Irony provides a potent tool for the critique of authority and reflexivity about dominant cultural codes, opening space for difference and cultural innovation (Jacobs and Smith 1997, Smith 1996).

A further bonus for this narrative approach is that cultural autonomy is assured (e.g., in the analytic sense, see Kane 1992). If one takes a structuralist approach to narrative (Barthes l970), textual forms are seen as interwoven repertoires of characters, plot lines and moral evaluations whose relationships can be specified in terms of formal models. Narrative theory, like semiotics, thus operates as a bridge between the kind of hermeneutic inquiry advocated by Geertz and the impulse towards general cultural theory. As Northrop Frye recognized, when approached in a structural way narrative allows for the construction of models that can be applied across cases and contexts but at the same time provides a tool for interrogating particularities.

It is important to emphasize that while meaning-full texts are central in this American strand of a strong program, wider social contexts are not by any means necessarily ignored. In fact, the objective structures and visceral struggles that characterize the real social world are every bit as important as in work from the weak programs. Notable contributions have been made to areas such as censorship and exclusion (Beisel 1993), race (Jacobs 1996), sexuality (Seidman 1988), violence (Gibson 1994; Smith 1991, 1996; Wagner-Pacifici 1994), and failed socio-historical projects for radical transformation (Alexander l995, forthcoming). These contexts are treated, however, not as forces unto themselves that ultimately determine the content and significance of cultural texts. Rather, they are seen as institutions and processes that refract cultural texts in a meaning-full way. They are arenas in which cultural forces combine or clash with material conditions and rational interests to produce particular outcomes (Ku l999, Smith l996). And beyond this they are seen as cultural metatexts themselves, as concrete embodiments of wider ideal currents.

6. Conclusions

We have suggested here that structuralism and hermeneutics can be made into fine bedfellows. The former offers possibilities for general theory construction, prediction and assertions of the autonomy of culture. The latter allows analysis to capture the texture and temper of social life. When complemented by attention to institutions and actors as causal intermediaries, we have the foundations of a robust cultural sociology. The argument we have made here for an emerging strong program has been slightly polemical in tone. This does not mean we disparage efforts to look at culture in other ways. If sociology is to remain healthy as a discipline, it should be able to support a theoretical pluralism and lively debate. There are important research questions, in fields from demography to stratification to economic and political life, to which weak programs can be expected make significant contributions. But it is equally important to make room for a genuinely cultural sociology. A first step toward this end is to speak out against false idols, to avoid the mistake of confusing reductionist sociology of culture approaches with a genuine strong program. Only in this way can the full promise of a cultural sociology be realized during the coming century.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1982). Theoretical Logic on Sociology Volume Two . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1987). Twenty Lectures . New York: Columbia University Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1988). Action and its Environments . New York: Columbia University Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1990). “Introduction: Understanding the ‘Relative Autonomy’ of Culture,” pp. 1-27 in J. Alexander and S. Seidman, (eds.), Culture and Society: Contemporary Debates . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1995). “‘Modern, Anti, Post and Neo: How Intellectuals Have Tried to Understand the ‘Crisis of our Time,’” New Left Review 210: 63-102.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1995). Fin-de-Siecle Social Theory . London. Verso.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (forthcoming). “From War Crime to Holocaust Trauma: Progressive and Tragic Narrations of the Nazi’s Mass Murder of the Jews” in J. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Geisen, N. Smelser and P. Sztompka, (eds.), Cultural Trauma . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1996). “Cultural Sociology or Sociology of Culture?” Culture , 10 (3-4): 1-5.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Sherwood, Steven (forthcoming). “Mythic Gestures: Robert Bellah and the Origins of Cultural Sociology,” in R. Madsen, W. M. Sullivan, A. Swidler, and S. M. Tipton (eds.), Meaning and Modernity: Religion, Polity, and the Self . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Smith, Philip (1993). “The Discourse of American Civil Society: A New Proposal for Cultural Studies,” Theory and Society , 22 (2): 151-207.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Smith, Philip (1998). “Sociologie culturelle ou sociologie de la culture?” Sociologie et sociétés ,30 (1): 107-116.

Anderson, Perry (1979). Considerations on Western Marxism . London: Verso.

Barthes, Roland (1970). S/Z . Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Beisel, Nicola (1993). “Morals Versus Art,” American Sociological Review , 58: 145-162.

Bellah, Robert (1970). Beyond Belief . New York: Harper and Row.

Bernstein, Basil (1971). Class, Codes and Control . London: Routledge.

Blau, Judith (1989). The Shape of Culture . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bloor, David (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery . London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1962). “Les Relations Entre les Sexes dans la Societe Paysanne,” Les Temps Modernes , 195: 307-331.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brooks, Peter (1985). The Melodramatic Imagination . New York: Columbia University Press.

Brenner, Neil (1994). “Foucault’s New Functionalism,” Theory and Society 23, 679-709.

Clifford, James (1988). The Predicament of Culture . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Crane, Diana (1992). The Production of Culture . Newbury Park: Sage.

Davis, Mike (1992). City of Quartz . New York: Vintage Books.

DiMaggio, Paul and Powell, Walter (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Edles, Laura (1998). Symbol and Ritual in the New Spain . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Emirbayer, Mustafa (1996). “Useful Durkheim,” Sociological Theory , 14 (2): 109-130.

Emirbayer, Mustafa and Goodwin, Jeff (1996). “Symbols, Positions, Objects,” History and Theory , 35 (3): 358-374.

Emirbayer, Mustafa and Mische, Ann (1998). “What is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology , 103 (4): 962-1023.

Eyerman, Ron (forthcoming). “Cultural Trauma and the Making of African American Identity” in J. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Geisen, N. Smelser and P. Sztompka (eds.), Cultural Trauma . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fine, Gary Alan (1987). With the Boys . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fiske, John (1987). Television Culture . New York: Routledge.

Foucault, Michel (1970). The Order of Things . London: Tavistock.

Foucault, Michel (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge . London: Tavistock.

Friedland, Roger and Alford, Robert (1991). “Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions,” pp. 232-263 in W. W. Powell and P. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frye, Northrop (1957). Anatomy of Criticism . Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, Clifford (1988). Works and Lives . Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Gibson, James William (1994). Warrior Dreams . New York: Hill and Wang.

Gottdiener, Mark (1995). Postmodern Semiotics . Blackwell: Oxford.

Griswold, Wendy (1983). “The Devil’s Techniques: Cultural Legitimation and Social Change,” American Sociological Review , 48: 668-680.

Grossberg, Lawrence; Nelson, Cary and Treichler, Paula (1991). Cultural Studies . New York: Routledge.

Hall, Stuart; Critcher, Chas; Jefferson, Tony; Clarke, John and Roberts, Bryan (1978). Policing the Crisis . London: Macmillan.

Honneth, Axel (1986). “The Fragmented World of Symbolic Forms,” Theory, Culture and Society , 3: 55-66.

Jacobs, Ronald (1996). “Civil Society and Crisis: Culture, Discourse and the Rodney King Beating,” American Journal of Sociology , 101 (5): 1238-72.

Jacobs, Ronald (2000). Race, Media and the Crisis of Civil Society . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, Ronald and Smith, Philip (1997). “Romance, Irony and Solidarity,” Sociological Theory , 15 (1): 60-80.

Kane, Anne (1992). “Cultural Analysis in Historical Sociology,” Sociological Theory , 9 (1): 53-69.

Ku, Agnes (1999). Narrative, Politics and the Public Sphere . Aldershot: Ashgate.

Lamont, Michele (1992). Money, Morals and Manners . Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Lamont, Michele and Fournier, Pierre (1993) Cultivating Differences . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lara, Maria Pia (1998). Moral Textures: Feminist Narratives of the Public Sphere . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Latour, Bruno and Woolgar, Steve (1986). Laboratory Life . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1974). Tristes Tropiques . New York: Atheneum.

Lockwood, David (1992). Solidarity and Schism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Magnuson, Eric (1997). “Ideological Conflict in American Political Culture,” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 17 (6): 84-130.

Miller, Peter and Rose, Nikolas (1990). “Governing Economic Life,” Economy and Society , 19 (2): 1-31.

Peterson, Richard (1985). “Six Constraints on the Production of Literary Works,” Poetics , 14: 45-67.

Rambo, Eric and Chan, Elaine (1990). “Text, Structure and Action in Cultural Sociology,” Theory and Society , 19 (5): 635-648.

Ricoeur, Paul (1971). “The Model of a Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text,” Social Research , 38: 529-562.

Rorty, Richard (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rorty, Richard (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rose, Nikolas (1993). “Government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism,” Economy and Society , 22 (3): 283-299.

Sahlins, Marshall (1976). Culture and Practical Reason . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sahlins, Marshall (1981). Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Seidman, Steven (1988). “Transfiguring Sexual Identity,” Social Text , 9 (20): 187-206.

Sewell, William (1992). “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation,” American Journal of Sociology , 98 (1): 1-30.

Sherwood, Steven; Smith, Philip and Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1993). “The British are Coming,” Contemporary Sociology , 22 (2): 370-375.

Smith, Philip (1991). “Codes and Conflict,” Theory and Society , 20: 103-138.

Smith, Philip (1994). “The Semiotic Foundations of Media Narratives: Saddam and Nasser in the American Mass Media,” Journal of Narrative and Life History , 4 (1-2): 89-118.

Smith, Philip (1996). “Executing Executions: Aesthetics, Identity and the Problematic Narratives of Capital Punishment Ritual,” Theory and Society , 25 (2): 235-261.

Smith, Philip (1998a). “The New American Cultural Sociology,” pp. 1-14 in P. Smith (ed.) The New American Cultural Sociology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, Philip (Ed.) (1998b). The New American Cultural Sociology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, Philip (1998c.) “Barbarism and Civility in the Discourses of Fascism, Communism and Democracy,” pp. 115-137 in J. Alexander (ed.), Real Civil Societies . London: Sage.

Smith, Philip and Alexander, Jeffrey C. (1996). “Durkheim’s Religious Revival,” American Journal of Sociology , 102 (2): 585-592.

Somers, Margaret (1995). “Narrating and Naturalizing Civil Society and Citizenship Theory,” Sociological Theory , 13 (3): 229-74.

Swidler, Ann (1986). “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,” American Sociological Review , 51: 273-286.

Thompson, E. P. (1978). The Poverty of Theory . London: Merlin.

Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields and Metaphors . Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Wagner-Pacifici, Robin (1986). The Moro Morality Play . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wagner-Pacifici, Robin (1994). Discourse and Destruction . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wagner-Pacifici, Robin (2000). Theorising the Standoff . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wagner-Pacific, Robin and Schwartz, Barry (1991). “The Vietnam Veterans Memorial,” American Journal of Sociology , 97 (2): 376-420.

Weber, Max (1958) [1915]. “Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions,” pp. 323-359, in H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber . New York: Oxford University Press.

White, Hayden (1987). The Content of the Form . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Willis, Paul (1977). Learning to Labour . Farnborough: Saxon House.

Wuthnow, Robert (1988). “Religious Discourse as Public Rhetoric,” Communication Research , 15 (3): 318-338.

Wuthnow, Robert (1989). Communities of Discourse . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

683 Sociology Essay Topics & Good Ideas

18 January 2024

last updated

Sociology essay topics cover broad concepts of human society, exploring varied areas, such as social behavior, norms, relationships, and structures. Some themes may scrutinize the influence of culture, gender, religion, and ethnicity on societal dynamics and consider hot issues, such as social inequality, crime, or race relations. They often involve empirical investigations into the mechanisms of social change and the impact of policy, technology, or economy on societal interactions. Other topics may delve into sociological theories and the examination of key social institutions, like family, education, and government. The wide range of sociological essay topics offers scholars valid studies, inviting fresh perspectives and innovative analyses to illuminate the multifaceted aspects of human social behavior and structure.

Best Sociology Essay Topics

Cultural Factors Influencing Eating Disorders
Modern Parenting Styles: A Comparative Study
Roles of Technology in Changing Family Dynamics
Ethnicity’s Impacts on Academic Achievement
Consumerism’s Role in Defining Social Status
Intersection of Poverty and Education: A Longitudinal Study
Unemployment’s Effect on Mental Health: A Global Perspective
Media Representation of Mental Illness and Its Consequences
Religious Beliefs and Their Role in Political Alignment
Examination of Ageism in Workplace Environments
Impacts of Mass Incarceration on Minority Communities
Understanding Social Factors in Suicide Rates Among Teenagers
Roles of Community in Promoting Sustainable Living Practices
Effects of Divorce on Children’s Socio-Emotional Development
How Does Homophobia Affect the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Individuals?
The Role of Schools in Fostering Racial and Ethnic Tolerance
Celebrity Influence on Youth Culture and Identity Formation
Microfinance’s Effects on Women’s Empowerment in Developing Countries
Urbanization’s Impacts on Community Solidarity: A Case Study
Roles of Sports in Promoting Gender Equality
Environmental Injustice: A Study of Marginalized Communities

Easy Sociology Essay Topics

Migration Patterns and Their Impact on Cultural Identity
Dynamics of Online Dating: A Sociological Perspective
Exploration of Drug Addiction Within Socioeconomic Contexts
Consequences of Gun Control Laws on Community Safety
Effects of Video Games on Youth Social Behavior
Analyzing the Impact of Peer Pressure on Risk-Taking Behavior
The Role of Volunteering in Community Development
Dynamics of Intergenerational Relationships in Modern Families
Impacts of Covid-19 on Social Inequality
Effects of Globalization on Cultural Preservation
Digital Divide: A Study on Information Inequality
Influence of Music Genres on Youth Subcultures
Examination of Cyber Activism’s Role in Modern Social Movements
Fashion’s Impacts on Individual Identity and Self-Expression
Ethical Dilemmas in Artificial Intelligence: A Sociological Perspective
Decoding the Role of Memes in Digital Culture
Effects of War on Social Structures in Conflict Zones
Social Stigmas and Their Impact on Mental Health Care
Understanding the Sociological Impact of Climate Change
Modern Slavery: Human Trafficking in a Global Perspective
Examining Disability Inclusion in Educational Institutions
Gentrification’s Impact on Neighborhood Cultures and Communities
Roles of Graffiti in Urban Social Movements

Interesting Sociology Essay Topics

Socioeconomic Factors in the Obesity Epidemic
Crime Rates and Their Correlation With Education Levels
Impacts of Universal Basic Income on Poverty Reduction
Influence of Reality TV on Public Perception of Relationships
Study of Implicit Bias in Healthcare Delivery
Popularity of eSports and Its Sociocultural Implications
Changing Perspectives on Masculinity in the Media
Exploration of the Digital Nomad Lifestyle
Understanding the Social Consequences of Space Exploration
Roles of Art Therapy in Trauma Recovery
Influence of Mobile Applications on Modern Dating Practices
Investigation of Language Shaming in Multicultural Societies
Relationship Between Social Movements and Public Policy Changes
Exploration of Multiculturalism in the Workplace
The Role of Health Literacy in Promoting Public Health
Dynamics of Political Polarization in Online Spaces
Analysis of Social Capital in Neighborhood Development
The Impact of Public Transportation on Urban Social Structures
Study of Veganism’s Influence on Social and Cultural Norms
Shifts in Gender Roles in Contemporary Society
Impacts of Homeschooling on Social Skills Development

Sociology Essay Topics for High School

The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Identity Formation
The Relationship Between Education and Social Mobility
Income Inequality and Social Cohesion
Gender, Parenting Styles, and Child Development
Cultural Diversity in Workplace Dynamics
Social Class Disparities in Health
Immigration and Social Integration
Religion’s Influence on Social Movements
Racial Profiling’s Effects on Minority Communities
Media’s Influence on Public Perception of Social Issues
Social Networks and Political Participation
Globalization’s Effects on Local Communities
Social Support’s Impact on Mental Health
Urbanization and its Impact on Social Relationships
Family Structures’ Influence on Child Well-Being
Technology’s Roles in Social Isolation
Social Norms and Deviant Behavior
Mass Incarceration’s Consequences for Communities
Environmental Pollution’s Impacts on Social Inequality
Social Capital and Economic Development
Social Movements’ Roles in Policy Change

Sociology Essay Topics for College Students

Gender Inequality in the Workplace: A Sociological Analysis
Effects of Parental Divorce on Children’s Well-Being
The Role of Education in Social Mobility
Exploring the Dynamics of Social Class in Contemporary Society
Examining the Relationship Between Race and Educational Achievement
Youth Subcultures and Their Impact on Identity Formation
Analyzing the Role of Religion in Shaping Cultural Values
Investigating the Link Between Poverty and Crime Rates in Urban Areas
Understanding the Social Construction of Deviance in Society
The Role of Family Structures in Adolescent Development
Exploring the Impact of Immigration on Social Integration
Social Factors Contributing to Substance Abuse Among Teens
The Influence of Peer Pressure on Risky Behavior in Adolescence
Analyzing the Effects of Stereotyping and Prejudice on Social Interactions
Examining the Intersectionality of Gender, Race, and Class in Society
Analyzing the Social Consequences of Globalization
Investigating the Impact of Technology on Social Relationships
Understanding the Social Factors Influencing Voter Behavior in Elections
Stereotypes and Prejudice: Influence on Interpersonal Relationships

Essay Topics in Educational Sociology

Assessing the Influence of Racial and Ethnic Identity on Educational Experiences
Addressing the Impact of School Segregation on Student Achievement
Exploring the Effects of Standardized Testing on Educational Equity
Investigating the Relationship Between School Funding and Academic Performance
Expanding on the Role of Teacher Quality in Student Achievement
Examining the Impact of School Climate on Bullying and Harassment
Exploring the Effects of Inclusive Education on Students With Disabilities
Analyzing the Relationship Between Cultural Capital and Educational Success
Investigating the Influence of Technology on Teaching and Learning
Understanding the Impact of School Violence on Community Factors
Focusing on the Relationship Between Immigration Status and Educational Opportunities
Expanding on the Effects of Early Childhood Education on Later Achievement
Investigating the Role of Tracking and Ability Grouping in Student Outcomes
Analyzing the Influence of Social Media on Student Well-Being
Explaining the Impact of Teacher-Student Relationships on Academic Performance
Examining the Effects of Multicultural Education on Promoting Social Justice
Exploring the Relationship Between School Choice Policies and Educational Equity
Addressing the Influence of Educational Policies on School Dropout Rates
Assessing the Impact of Peer Pressure on Academic Decision-Making

Sociology Essay Topics on Interpersonal Communication

Cross-Cultural Variations in Nonverbal Communication Norms
Gender Dynamics in Romantic Partnerships
Empathy’s Impacts on Effective Interpersonal Communication
Power Relations in Intergroup Interactions
The Influence of Family Communication Patterns on Relationships
Verbal Aggression and Conflict Resolution Approaches
Active Listening’s Role in Interpersonal Communication
Challenges of Cross-Cultural Communication in Global Organizations
Technological Effects on Face-to-Face Communication
Multicultural Workplace Interactions and Communication
Emotional Intelligence’s Significance in Interpersonal Relationships
Communication Dynamics in Long-Distance Partnerships
Nonverbal Communication in Negotiation and Conflict Settlement
Social Class’s Influence on Interpersonal Communication
Trust and Deception in Personal Relationships
Intergenerational Communication in Family Contexts
Communication’s Role in Building and Sustaining Trust
Effective Strategies for Workplace Conflict Resolution
Communication Patterns in Cross-Cultural Friendships
Interpersonal Communication and Mental Health Associations

Sociology Essay Topics on Aging & the Elderly

Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Older Adults
Roles of Intergenerational Relationships in Aging Communities
Impacts of Ageism on the Well-Being of the Elderly
Community Support Systems for Aging Populations
Health Disparities among Older Adults in Underserved Communities
Gender and Aging: Exploring Gendered Experiences in Later Life
Employment and Retirement Patterns in the Aging Workforce
Elder Abuse and Neglect: Addressing an Alarming Social Issue
The Intersectionality of Race, Class, and Aging
Technology Adoption and Digital Divide Among the Elderly
Quality of Life and Aging: Assessing Well-Being in Later Years
Aging and Mental Health: Understanding the Linkages
Social Security and Pension Systems: Challenges and Solutions
Caregiving and Family Dynamics in an Aging Society
Social Networks and Social Support among Older Adults
Active Aging: Promoting Healthy Lifestyles in Later Life
End-of-Life Care and Decision-Making Among the Elderly
Retirement Communities: Examining Alternative Living Arrangements
Aging in Place: The Impact of Home Environments on Older Adults
Social Participation and Engagement in Aging Populations
Aging and Disability: Addressing the Needs of Older Individuals

Crime & Deviance Sociology Essay Topics

The Impact of White-Collar Crime on Corporate Culture
Juvenile Delinquency and Peer Influence in Urban Communities
Exploring the Link Between Poverty and Street Crime Rates
The Relationship Between Drug Addiction and Criminal Behavior
Gender Disparities in Sentencing for Violent Offenses
Examining the Social Factors Contributing to Hate Crimes
The Influence of Neighborhood Characteristics on Criminal Incidence
Exploring the Role of Media Portrayals in Perceptions of Deviance
The Social Construction of Nonconforming Sexualities in Contemporary Society
Factors Influencing Police Brutality: An Empirical Analysis
Understanding the Social Control Mechanisms Against Organized Crime
The Societal Impact of White-Collar Offenses on Victims
Examining the Nexus Between Mental Health and Criminal Behavior
The Role of Peer Pressure in Adolescent Substance Misuse and Delinquency
Intersectionality of Race, Class, and Gender in Criminal Justice Experiences
Educational Disparities and Crime Rates: A Sociological Perspective
Family Dynamics and Juvenile Delinquency: An Exploratory Study
Social and Psychological Consequences of Wrongful Convictions
Technological Advancements and Emerging Crime Patterns
Social and Economic Consequences of Gang Involvement

Sociology Essay Topics on Education & Inequality

Socioeconomic Disparities and Academic Achievement
Gendered Perspectives on Educational Inequality
Racial Segregation: Implications for Access to Education
Parental Involvement in Promoting Educational Success
School Funding Disparities and Student Performance
Teacher Quality and Its Impact on Academic Achievement
School Discipline Policies: Addressing Educational Disparities
Standardized Testing and Its Effects on Educational Equity
School Choice Programs: Examining Equal Educational Opportunities
Cultural Capital and Its Influence on Educational Stratification
Language Barriers: Challenges in Educational Access
Tracking and Ability Grouping: Academic Achievement Implications
Technology in Education: Bridging the Educational Gap
Early Childhood Education and Its Impact on Academic Outcomes
Immigration Status and Educational Attainment Disparities
School Climate: Fostering Student Engagement and Achievement
Educational Policies: Tackling Inequality in Education
Socioeconomic Inequality and College Admission
Allocation of School Resources: Addressing Educational Equity
School Segregation: Consequences for Educational Opportunities
Special Education Programs: Ensuring Inclusive Education

Family Sociology Essay Topics

Technology and Family Communication Patterns: Exploring the Influence
Challenges Faced by Blended Families in Modern Society
Extended Family and Its Role in Childrearing Practices
Family Structure and Juvenile Delinquency: An Investigative Study
Cultural Norms and Marriage: Examining Their Impact on Family Life
Single Parenthood and Children’s Educational Attainment: An Analytical Approach
Social Media and Family Relationships: Understanding the Impact
Intergenerational Relationships in Families: Exploring the Dynamics
Religion and Family Values: Analyzing the Influence
Parental Involvement and Academic Achievement: Evaluating the Role
Domestic Violence and Family Functioning: A Comprehensive Analysis
Immigration and Family Dynamics: Unraveling the Impact
Factors Influencing Parental Decision-Making in Education: An Investigative Study
Family Support and Mental Health: Analyzing the Effects
Family Structure and Health: Exploring the Impact on Well-Being
Family Size and Socioeconomic Mobility: Investigating the Relationship
LGBTQ+ Parenting and Children’s Well-Being: A Comparative Study
Sibling Relationships and Socialization: Examining Their Role in Identity Formation
Parental Employment and Family Dynamics: Analyzing the Effects
Family Rituals and Traditions: Understanding Their Influence on Social Cohesion

Sociology Essay Topics on Human Rights

Global Perspectives on Gender Inequality’s Impact on Human Rights
Socioeconomic Factors Influencing Education Access and Human Rights
Intersectionality: Examining Interplay of Multiple Identities in Human Rights Discourse
Effects of Mass Incarceration on Human Rights Violations
Exploring Indigenous Rights and Human Rights in Postcolonial Societies
Digital Activism’s Influence on Human Rights Advocacy
Implications of Environmental Degradation for Human Rights
Migration’s Impacts on Human Rights Protections
Media’s Roles in Shaping Public Opinion on Human Rights Issues
Relationship Between Disability Rights and Human Rights Analysis
Ethical Implications of Humanitarian Interventions Violating National Sovereignty
Effects of Economic Inequality on Human Rights Violations
Understanding Armed Conflicts’ Impact on Women and Children’s Rights
International Organizations’ Role in Protecting Human Rights
Influence of Cultural Relativism on Human Rights Universality
Technology’s Role in Surveillance and Privacy Rights Erosion
Discrimination’s Impacts on LGBTQ+ Rights Analysis
Effects of Neoliberal Policies on Labor and Human Rights
Non-Governmental Organizations’ Roles in Promoting Human Rights
Exploring Human Rights’ Connection With Global Health
Racial Profiling’s Implications for Human Rights and Social Justice

Sociology Essay Topics on Inequality & Social Stratification

The Impact of Gender Inequality on Workforce Participation
Racial Disparities in Educational Attainment: An Examination
Social Mobility and Income Inequality in Urban Communities: An Analysis
The Role of Social Class in Health Disparities: Exploring the Effects
The Effects of Income Inequality on Political Participation: An Assessment
Social Stratification and Crime Rates: Investigating the Relationship
Ethnicity and Housing Segregation Patterns: Exploring the Influence
The Impact of Wealth Inequality on Intergenerational Mobility: An Analysis
Gender and Occupational Segregation: Examining the Role
Educational Inequality and Social Mobility: Investigating the Consequences
Race, Class, and Gender in Employment: Assessing the Intersectionality
Social Stratification and Mental Health: Exploring the Effects
Social Class and Access to Healthcare Services: Analyzing the Relationship
Discrimination and Social Inequality: Investigating the Role
Social Inequality and Family Structures: Exploring the Effects
Social Stratification and Educational Outcomes: Assessing the Impact
Social Class, Political Power, and Policy Making: Examining the Influence
Institutional Racism and Social Inequality: Investigating the Role
Wealth Inequality and Social Cohesion: Analyzing the Effects
Age, Gender, and Income Inequality: Exploring the Intersectionality

Marriage & Divorce Sociology Essay Topics

Societal Factors Influencing Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Rates
The Effect of Gender Roles on Matrimonial Dynamics and Divorce Trends
Cultural Influences on Matrimony and Divorce Patterns
Economic Factors and Their Impact on Marital Stability and Divorce Rates
The Role of Religion in Shaping Conjugal Values and Divorce Decisions
Marital Expectations and Their Influence on Probability of Divorce
The Influence of Education Levels on Marital Contentment and Divorce Rates
Interracial Matrimony: Challenges, Advantages, and Divorce Trends
Marital Infidelity: Causes, Ramifications, and Divorce Outcomes
The Impact of Social Media on Marital Relationships and Divorce Rates
Divorce Mediation and Its Role in Facilitating Amicable Separation
Psychological Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction in Marriage and Divorce
Divorce and Its Effects on Offspring’s Well-Being and Socioemotional Development
The Role of Communication Patterns in Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Rates
Conflict Resolution Strategies in Marriage and Their Impact on Divorce Probability
Marital Satisfaction and Divorce Rates among Same-Sex Couples
The Effect of Premarital Counseling on Marital Stability and Divorce Rates
The Influence of Family Background on Marital Choices and Divorce Trends
Marital Contentment and Divorce Rates in Arranged Unions vs. Love Marriages
The Impact of Cohabitation on Marital Satisfaction and Likelihood of Divorce
Support Networks in Marriage and Their Role in Divorce Recovery

Sociology Essay Topics on Religion & Spirituality

The Impact of Religious Practices on Social Cohesion
Exploring the Role of Spirituality in Mental Health
Examining the Intersection of Religion and Gender Equality
Analyzing the Effects of Religious Education on Youth Development
Investigating the Influence of Religious Beliefs on Political Participation
Understanding the Dynamics of Religious Conversion in Contemporary Society
The Role of Religion in Shaping Cultural Identity
Expanding on the Connection Between Spirituality and Well-Being
Addressing the Relationship Between Religious Diversity and Social Integration
Explaining the Impact of Religious Rituals on Emotional Expression
The Influence of Religious Institutions on Social Justice Movements
Exploring the Link Between Religion and Environmentalism
Examining the Role of Spirituality in Coping With Trauma and Loss
Social Consequences of Religious Fundamentalism
Intersection of Religion and Technology in the Digital Age
Investigating the Influence of Religious Beliefs on Attitudes Toward LGBTQ+ Individuals
The Role of Religion in Shaping Ethical Decision-Making
Exploring the Connection Between Spirituality and Social Support Networks
Analyzing the Relationship Between Religious Beliefs and Health Behaviors
Focusing on the Impact of Religious Symbols on Public Spaces
The Influence of Religious Discourse on Political Polarization

Social Change & Development Sociology Essay Topics

Impacts of Technology on Social Mobility
Roles of Education in Social Equality
Changing Dynamics of Gender Roles in Modern Society
Effects of Urbanization on Community Identity
Transformation of Family Structures in Contemporary Society
Influence of Social Media on Political Activism
Shifting Patterns of Migration and Cultural Integration
Societal Implications of Aging Populations
Power Dynamics and Social Movements in the Digital Age
Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development
Impacts of Globalization on Local Cultures
Evolution of Workforce Diversity and Inclusion
Social Stigma and Mental Health in Modern Society
Changing Attitudes Toward Marriage and Relationships
Politics of Resistance: Social Change and Activism
Technological Advances and Social Inequality
Cultural Appropriation and Identity Politics
Evolution of Community Engagement in Governance
Roles of Social Institutions in Fostering Social Change
Socioeconomic Disparities and Access to Healthcare

Sociology Essay Topics on Social Issues

Impacts of Economic Inequality on Social Mobility
Effects of Gender Stereotypes on Workplace Discrimination
Consequences of Racial Profiling by Law Enforcement
Roles of Social Media in Influencing Political Activism
Influence of Mass Media on Perception of Body Image
Implications of Immigration Policies on Cultural Integration
Exploring the Causes and Effects of Homelessness
Examining the Relationship between Education and Income Disparity
Analyzing the Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children’s Well-Being
Understanding the Dynamics of Social Class and Health Disparities
Investigating the Impact of Technology on Social Isolation
Unveiling the Roots of Institutional Racism in Education
Studying the Role of Religion in Shaping Social Norms
Analyzing the Consequences of Police Brutality on Community Trust
Expanding on the Effects of Environmental Pollution on Public Health
Focusing on the Social Impact of the Gig Economy
Addressing the Relationship Between Mental Health and Social Support
Explaining the Causes and Consequences of Substance Abuse
Analyzing the Role of Social Networks in Political Polarization
Unraveling the Factors Influencing Intergenerational Mobility

Sociology Essay Topics on Stereotypes

Media’s Roles in Shaping Racial Stereotypes in Contemporary Society
Gender Stereotypes and Workplace Dynamics: A Comparative Study
Education’s Roles in Challenging Cultural Stereotypes
Effects of Stereotypes on Mental Health in Marginalized Communities
Influence of Stereotypes on Political Decision-Making Processes
Unveiling Stereotypes and Perceptions of Aging in Modern Society
Intersectionality of Stereotypes: LGBTQ+ Communities as a Case Study
Stereotypes and Stigmas Associated with Mental Illness
Effects of Stereotypes on Self-Esteem and Body Image in Adolescents
Relationship Between Stereotypes and Social Inequality
Stereotypes and Criminal Justice System Practices
Influence of Stereotypes on Academic Achievement Among Minority Students
Stereotypes and Challenges Faced by Immigrant Communities
Impacts of Stereotypes on Parenting Practices and Family Dynamics
Stereotypes and Prejudices in Intercultural Relationships
Roles of Stereotypes in Shaping Gender Identity and Expression
Stereotypes and Health Disparities in Marginalized Populations
Stereotypes and Discrimination in Hiring and Employment Practices
Unraveling Stereotypes and Perceptions of Disabilities in Society
Roles of Stereotypes in Influencing Consumer Behavior and Advertising Strategies
Stereotypes and Representation in the Entertainment Industry

Work & Employment Sociology Essay Topics

The Impact of Automation on Job Security in the Manufacturing Sector
Social Inequalities in Access to Employment Opportunities for Marginalized Groups
Exploring Work-Life Balance Policies’ Effects on Job Satisfaction and Productivity
Examining Employee Engagement’s Influence on Organizational Performance
Social Class and the Experience of Unemployment: A Comparative Analysis
The Influence of Remote Work on Social Interaction and Communication Patterns
Investigating Occupational Segregation and Its Implications for Gender Equality
Analyzing Social Networks’ Role in Job Search and Career Advancement
The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Well-Being and Job Retention
Technological Change and the Transformation of Workplace Skills
The Stigmatization of Non-Standard Employment Arrangements: A Comparative Study
Assessing Occupational Health and Safety: Work-Related Risks and Social Consequences
Social Movements and Advocacy for Workers’ Rights: Strategies and Outcomes
The Influence of Temporary Employment on Income Inequality and Social Mobility
Examining the Link Between Job Insecurity and Mental Health
Promoting Workplace Diversity and Inclusion: Challenges and Opportunities
The Role of Emotional Labor in Service Industries: Effects on Workers’ Well-Being
Exploring Social Class’s Impact on Occupational Aspirations and Career Choices
The Influence of Globalization on Labor Markets and Workers’ Rights
Uncovering Bias in the Hiring Process: Discrimination and Its Consequences

Environmental Sociology Topics

Media Framing and Public Perceptions of Environmental Issues
Food Insecurity in Urban Areas: Social Factors at Play
Social Movements and Environmental Justice: Examining the Role
Environmental Policies and Their Impact on Rural Communities
Environmental Racism and Health Disparities: Exploring the Relationship
Social Dynamics of Renewable Energy Adoption: An Investigation
Education and Environmental Sustainability: Analyzing the Role
Plastic Pollution: Social and Economic Implications
Environmental Degradation and Conflict: Understanding the Relationship
Social Networks and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Assessing the Influence
Cultural Values and Environmental Attitudes: Examining the Role
Socioeconomic Consequences of Natural Disasters on Vulnerable Populations
Climate Change and Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Impacts and Insights
Social Dimensions of Sustainable Agriculture Practices: An Exploration
Environmental NGOs and Environmental Governance: Assessing the Role
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability: Analyzing the Influence
Socioeconomic Factors and E-Waste Generation: A Study
Social Dynamics of Wildlife Conservation Efforts: Understanding the Patterns
Environmental Awareness and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Exploring the Relationship
Social and Cultural Factors Shaping Attitudes Toward Animal Rights

Food Sociology Essay Topics

Social Implications of Food Waste in Urban Areas
Changing Cultural Dynamics in Dietary Patterns
The Influence of Food Advertising on Eating Habits
Social Disparities in Access to Nutritious Food
Gender Roles and Inequalities in the Food Service Industry
Food Security and Its Intersection With Social Justice
Cultural Identity and Food Preferences among Immigrant Communities
Ethical Challenges in Factory Farming and Animal Agriculture
Community Gardens as Catalysts for Social Interaction
Food Deserts: Addressing Inequities in Low-Income Areas
Socioeconomic Factors Shaping Food Purchasing Decisions
Exploring Food Taboos and Rituals across Cultures
The Social Construction of Taste and Culinary Preferences
Foodie Culture and its Role in Establishing Social Distinction
Food as a Catalyst for Building and Maintaining Social Networks
Globalization’s Influence on Food Cultures and Practices
Food and Socialization: The Family Meal as an Institution
Food Justice Movements and Grassroots Activism for Change
Socioeconomic Disparities in Food Quality and Nutrition
Online Food Communities and the Digital Food Landscape
Perceptions of Organic and Locally Sourced Foods

Globalization & International Sociology Topics

The Impact of Globalization on Cultural Identity Formation
Cross-Cultural Communication in Globalized Societies
The Role of Social Media in Globalization Processes
Globalization and the Rise of Transnational Corporations
Effects of Globalization on Labor Markets and Workforce Mobility
Influence of Globalization on Gender Equality
Globalization and Environmental Sustainability: Challenges and Solutions
Non-Governmental Organizations in Globalization
Social Inequality in the Era of Globalization
Implications of Globalization for Health and Well-Being
Political Power Shifts in the Context of Globalization
Globalization’s Impacts on Indigenous Communities
Education and Globalization: Access and Equity Issues
Migration Patterns in a Globalized World
Urbanization in the Age of Globalization: Changing Landscapes and Social Dynamics
International Law and Its Role in Globalization
Globalization’s Influence on Religious Movements
Transformation of Family Structures in the Era of Globalization
Globalization’s Effect on National Identity
Social Movements in the Context of Globalization: Resistance and Activism

Medical Sociology Essay Topics

Racial Disparities in Maternal Medical Care
Socioeconomic Status and Health Outcomes
The Social Construction of Illness and Disability
Effectiveness of Community Health Programs
Social Factors Contributing to Substance Misuse
Dynamics of Managing Chronic Illness in Society
Cultural Influence on Health Beliefs and Practices
Social Media’s Effects on Body Image and Psychological Well-Being
Ethical and Social Implications of Genetic Testing
Roles of Social Support in Coping With Long-Term Illness
Religion’s Impacts on Health Decision-Making
Intersectionality of Race, Gender, and Access to Healthcare
Societal Attitudes Toward Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Impacts of Immigration Status on Healthcare Accessibility
Healthcare Policies and Mitigating Health Disparities
Influence of Social Networks on Health Behaviors
Societal Perceptions of Education’s Influence on Health Outcomes
Stigmatization of Individuals Living With HIV/AIDS
Social Factors Affecting Vaccination Rates
Consequences of Medicalization on Society and Health
Roles of Social Identity in Health Inequalities

Sociology Essay Topics on Gender Studies

Social Constructs and Perceptions of Masculinity in Modern Society
Exploring Intersectionality in Gender and Race at Work
Gendered Violence and Its Psychological Impacts
Linguistic Influence on Gender Stereotypes
Media’s Role in Shaping Gender Norms
Non-Binary Gender Identity and Expression
Patriarchy’s Effect on Women’s Empowerment in Developing Nations
Comparative Analysis of Transgender Rights and Legal Protections
Addressing the Gender Pay Gap: Causes and Strategies
Parental Impact on Early Childhood Gender Socialization
Historical Perspectives on LGBTQ+ Activism
Gender Disparities in STEM Education and Careers
Challenging Traditional Gender Roles: Masculinity and Emotional Labor
Gender’s Influence on Leadership Styles and Organizational Performance
Gender Expectations and Body Image: Impacts on Self-Esteem
Gender’s Roles in Political Participation and Representation
Global Challenges and Progress in LGBTQ+ Rights
Sports Segregation by Gender: Impacts on Athletes
Gender Disparities in Healthcare: Access, Treatment, and Outcomes
Advertising and Femininity: Stereotypes vs. Empowerment

Nationality & Race Sociology Essay Topics

Ethnic Stereotypes’ Influence on Hiring Practices
Trust in Law Enforcement and the Issue of Racial Profiling
Social Construction of Race and Its Implications for Inequality
Intersectionality: Race, Gender, and Class in Educational Achievement
Political Participation and the Role of Racial Identity
Media Representations’ Influence on Racial Perceptions
Racial Disparities in Healthcare Access and Social Factors
Ethnic Conflict: Effects on Social Cohesion
Criminal Justice System: Race, Policies, and Practices
Affirmative Action’s Impact on Employment and Educational Opportunities
Social Mobility and the Role of Race
Ethnic Enclaves: Dynamics in Urban Neighborhoods
Cultural Appropriation and Its Effects on Minority Communities
Educational Achievement: Racial Segregation’s Influence
Intersectionality: Nationality, Race, Religion, and Identity Formation
Race in Political Movements and Activism
Racial Health Disparities: Social-Economic Factors at Play
Workplace Diversity and Organizational Outcomes
Race’s Influence on the Criminal Justice System
Social Capital: Effects of Racial Residential Segregation
Voting Patterns, Political Representation, and Race

Sociology Topics on Poverty & Inequality

Examining the Link Between Educational Attainment and Poverty
Government Policies to Alleviate Poverty and Socioeconomic Disparity
The Impact of Globalization on Poverty Rates: An Analysis
Poverty and Crime: Unraveling the Relationship
Social Networks as a Tool for Mitigating Poverty and Inequality
Assessing the Effects of Urban Revitalization on Socioeconomic Disparity
Technological Advancements and Their Implications for Income Inequality
Social Capital and Poverty: Investigating the Associations
Homelessness and Poverty: A Comprehensive Examination
The Cycle of Poverty and Its Inter-Generational Impact
Disparity in Access to Quality Education: A Comparative Study
Ethnicity and Its Role in Shaping Poverty and Inequality
Food Insecurity and Poverty: An In-Depth Analysis
Social Welfare Programs and Their Impact on Poverty Reduction
Effects of Income Inequality on Mental Health Outcomes
Intersectionality: Analyzing Multiple Dimensions of Disadvantage in Poverty
Structural Inequality and Its Contribution to Persistent Poverty
Political Power and Economic Inequality: Unraveling the Link
Income Inequality and Social Cohesion: A Cross-National Perspective
Poverty, Inequality, and Environmental Justice: Examining the Nexus

Religion Sociology Essay Topics

Religious Pluralism: Impact on Social Integration and Cohesion
Rituals and Symbolism in Contemporary Faith Practices
Gender Roles and Religious Beliefs: A Sociological Perspective
Secularism’s Influence on Religious Convictions and Practices
The Role of Religion in Shaping Moral Ethics and Values
Migration’s Impacts on Religious Communities and Dynamics
Formation of Religious Identity in Diverse Societies
Religious Fundamentalism: Societal Implications and Effects
Promoting Peace and Understanding Through Interfaith Dialogue
Social Media’s Influence on Faith-Based Communities
Religion and Social Inequality: Analyzing the Intersection
The Nexus of Religion and Politics: Examining Faith’s Governance Role
Atheism and Non-Religious Identity in Modern Society
Religious Conversion: Factors and Societal Consequences
Faith-Based Schools: Exploring the Relationship Between Religion and Education
Digitalization and Religious Practices: Examining the Influence of Technology
Sacred Ecology: Exploring the Interplay of Religion and Environmentalism
Religion and Deviance: Analyzing Extremism and Cults
Faith’s Influence on Family Dynamics: Exploring Religious Beliefs in Domestic Life
Spirituality and Mental Health: The Intersection of Religion and Psychological Well-Being
Societal Significance of Religious Symbols

Sociology Essay Topics About Sexuality & Sexual Orientation

Family Dynamics’ Influence on Mental Health of Sexual Minorities
Bisexual Individuals: Stereotypes and Stigma in Society
Evolution of Public Opinion on Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
Heteronormativity and its Effects on Non-Heterosexual Individuals
Linking Sexual Orientation to Mental Health Disorders
Experiences of LGBTQ+ Youth in Educational Settings
Gender Identity and its Influence on Sexual Orientation
Socioeconomic Factors and Health Disparities in LGBTQ+ Communities
Media Representation and Perceptions of Sexual Orientation
Challenges Faced by Transgender Individuals in Healthcare Systems
Impacts of Homophobia on the Well-Being of Sexual Minorities
Intersectionality of Disability and LGBTQ+ Identity
Workplace Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
Roles of Comprehensive Sex Education in Promoting Inclusivity
Influence of Political Ideologies on LGBTQ+ Rights Movements
Experiences of Sexual Minorities in Non-Western Cultures
Links Between Sexual Orientation and Substance Use Disorders
Impacts of Coming Out on Family Dynamics and Relationships
Access to Healthcare and Sexual Orientation
Peer Influence on Adolescent Sexual Exploration and Identity

Sociology Essay Topics on Social Stratification & Class

Occupational Segregation and Its Implications on Class
The Influence of Social Capital on Class Formation
Social Stratification and Disparities in Health
Intergenerational Transmission of Socioeconomic Status
Globalization and Its Effects on Class Structure
Social Class and Political Engagement
The Dynamics of Poverty and Exclusion
Cultural Consumption Patterns and Social Class
Class-Based Discrimination and Injustice
Intersectionality of Race, Gender, and Class
Social Mobility and Class Attainment
Class Consciousness and Activism
Residential Segregation and Class Divisions
Family Background and Class Reproduction
Disparities in Healthcare Access Across Class
Media, Technology, and Class Stratification
Social Class and Environmental Disparities
Global Perspectives on Stratification
Educational Achievement and Class Differences
Class and the Criminal Justice System
Neoliberalism and Changing Class Structures
Political Power and Influence by Social Class

Youth Culture Sociology Essay Topics

Relationship Between Youth Culture and Political Activism
Gender Dynamics and Power Structures in Social Groups of Adolescents
Influence of Education on Values within Youth Culture
Impacts of Consumerism on Contemporary Youth
Media Representation and Construction of Young Identity
Exploring Mental Health in the Context of Youth Culture
Intersectionality of Race, Class, and Cultural Practices Among Young People
Family Dynamics and Cultural Identity Formation in Youth
Urbanization and Its Effects on Socialization Patterns of Adolescents
Sports as a Catalyst for Youth Subcultures
Exploring the Link Between Youth Culture and Substance Abuse
Impacts of Immigration on the Cultural Identity of Young Individuals
Roles of Religion in Shaping Values Within Youth Culture
Effects of Social Inequality on Youth Socialization Patterns
Fashion, Style, and Subcultural Expressions Among Young People
Youth Culture and Exploration of Sexual Orientation
Influence of Pop Culture on Adolescent Identity Formation
Peer Relationships and Cultural Practices in Youth
Political Movements and Their Impact on Youth Culture
Technology and Emerging Youth Subcultures

Sociology Essay Topics on Social Movements

Dynamics of Civil Rights Movements in the Digital Age
Evolution of Anti-War Movements From the 20th Century to the Present
Intersectionality of Social Movements and Identity Politics
Globalization’s Effects on Transnational Social Movements
Youth Activism’s Roles in Socio-Political Change
Economic Inequality and Its Relationship With Social Movements
Tactics and Strategies of LGBTQ+ Movements for Equal Rights
Implications of Social Movements for Public Policy
Labor Movements and Worker Rights and Protections
Impacts of Social Movements on Criminal Justice Reform
Significance of Religious Movements in Social Change
Media Framing’s Roles in Shaping Public Perception of Social Movements
Globalization of Anti-Racism Movements in the 21st Century
Art and Culture’s Role in Social Movements
NGOs and Their Facilitating Role in Social Movements
Relationship Between Social Movements and Electoral Politics
Impacts of Immigration Movements on Societal Integration
Indigenous Movements’ Resistance to Colonialism and Cultural Preservation
Feminist Movements’ Influence on Workplace Equality
Social Movements’ Roles in Reducing Health Disparities
Influence of Anti-Globalization Movements on Trade Policies

Urban Sociology Essay Topics

Urban Poverty: Challenges of Social Welfare Programs
Environmental Justice in Sustainable Urban Development
Urban Youth Culture: Identity Formation Dynamics
Immigration, Integration, and Urban Settings
Urbanization’s Impacts on Mental Health and Well-Being
Social Movements and Activism in Urban Spaces
Disparities in Urban Education: Examining the Achievement Gap
Gated Communities: Influence on Social Interactions in Urban Areas
Social Media’s Role in Urban Communication Patterns
Urbanization, Gender Roles, and Relationship Transformations
Urban Arts, Culture, and Their Contribution to Community Development
Social Exclusion, Marginalization, and Urban Contexts
Urbanization and the Transformation of Traditional Communities
Urban Infrastructure: Enhancing Social Inclusion
Urban Aging: Challenges of Elderly Care in Cities
Social Implications of Urban Regeneration Projects
Intersectionality in Urban Spaces: Race, Class, and Gender
Urban Food Systems: Access to Nutritious Food
Social Networks, Economic Opportunities, and Urban Environments
Gated Communities and Social Cohesion in Urban Areas
Urbanization’s Impacts on Rural Communities

Sociology Essay Questions

How Does Gender Inequality Impact Social Dynamics in Contemporary Society?
In What Ways Do Social Media Platforms Shape and Influence Modern Relationships?
How Do Economic Disparities Affect Social Mobility and Individual Opportunities?
What Is the Connection Between Religion and the Formation of Social Norms?
How Does Immigration Influence Cultural Identity and Foster Social Cohesion?
How Does Education Influence Social Stratification and Access to Opportunities?
What Are the Causes and Effects of Racial Discrimination in Society?
How Does Power Play a Role in Driving Social Movements and Shaping Outcomes?
What Are the Effects of Urbanization on Community Cohesion and Interactions?
How Do Race, Class, and Gender Intersect to Shape Experiences and Opportunities?
How Do Family Structures Shape Individual Identities and Socialization Patterns?
What Are the Social Implications of Substance Abuse and Addiction?
How Does Globalization Influence Local Cultures and Promote Cultural Diversity?
How Does Mass Media Construct Social Reality and Influence Public Opinion?
What Are the Ramifications of Ageism for Individuals and Society?
How Does Social Inequality Impact Access to Healthcare and Health Outcomes?
What Socioeconomic Factors Contribute to Variations in Crime Rates?
How Do Social Movements Drive Policy Change and Foster Societal Progress?
How Does Socialization Shape Human Behavior and Foster Social Identity?
How Does Societal Change Impact Traditional Gender Roles and Expectations?
How Does Social Support Contribute to Individual Well-Being and Resilience?
What Is the Influence of Political Ideologies on Social Policies and Welfare?
How Does Environmental Degradation Impact Society and Social Dynamics?
How Does Social Stratification Impact Access to Resources and Opportunities?

To Learn More, Read Relevant Articles

396 ged essay topics, prompts, & good ideas, 468 explanatory essay topics & good ideas.

Essay Writing

Sociology of Culture

In the reading by Santoro and Solaroli, the main discussion refers to the analysis of the sociology of culture and cultural sociology in terms of the two perspectives, e.g., Pierre Bourdieu and Jeffrey Alexander. The former serves as a background for the criticism suggested by the latter, as Alexander has introduced new ideas on the contemporary sociological paradigm highlighted in the concept of ‘strong program.’ The main approach of this sociological intervention is to incorporate a deeper meaning of culture in the social realm, as the previous (weak) programs (including Bourdieu) lack “the deepest structure of social life, the inner engine of social action, and the constitutively meaningful dimension of society” (Santoro and Solaroli 49). In this respect, the core of Alexander’s criticism revolves around the previous claims and methods proposed by Bourdieu without diminishing their meaning for the rise of a new scientific thought in the field of cultural sociology.

The theory by Bourdieu represents a particular vector of a weak and insufficient understanding of the cultural phenomena, as well as cultural analysis. By uncovering the weak points in his theory and redefining their meaning amid the current flows in sociology and culture, it is possible to strengthen Bourdieu’s theory in conjunction with Alexander’s standpoints included in ‘strong program.’ In other words, Alexander’s standpoints aim at refreshing the established scientific achievements in their relation to the new realities and changes going on in the ever-changing society.

For Alexander, culture encompasses the realm of meanings without which the sociological project cannot be complete. In this respect, his theoretical approach criticizes the four ‘weak programs,’ including “Foucaultian social theory, British Cultural Studies (BCS), an eclectic (and mostly American) ‘production and reception of culture’ research stream and, last but not least, Bourdieu’s work” (Santoro and Solaroli 51). However, Alexander does not diminish the meaning of the works by Foucault, Bourdieu, and BCS, as these sociological schools served as a prerequisite for the contemporary new vision of sociology of culture versus cultural sociology.

However, there is a strong argument that none of the aforementioned sociological schools could manage to perceive meanings and symbols constituting culture and its power to shape the socio-political and economic spheres of life. In other words, previous sociological efforts were not enough to underline and support the autonomous character of culture and its independent development. Alexander’s ‘strong program’ follows the notion that, in analytical terms, culture is “potentially autonomous from social forces and social structures, and exists beyond, beside and behind them – therefore asking for an autonomous investigation, independently from other dimensions/spheres” (Santoro and Solaroli 51). In its methodological approach, ‘strong program’ tends to reconstruct and transform social texts in a more convincing way so that to enrich their symbolic meanings. It also connects cultural capacity to interfere in the social realm with the actual actors and agencies responsible for it.

Culture is not one of the applicable variables in the meaning of social life, as it is a so-called ‘thick’ variable able to dictate its postulates and meanings independently. The thing is that Bourdieu failed to perceive and incorporate the language of variables and the social ontology it presumes so that to create a transmissible new theory with a new sociological paradigm (Santoro and Solaroli 53). Alexander’s theoretical approach makes the record straight in initiating a new way of understanding culture from a stronger vision of its overall effect on society.

It stems from the initial positioning of culture at the core of social networks and sociological enterprise, overall, based on the assumption that culture is “a truly sociological object to be analyzed in its inner constitution and as a force in itself, capable of producing effects on its own” (Santoro and Solaroli 53). This stance is uncompromising in its new vision of culture within the sociological research. Earlier, the most renowned sociologists were unwilling or unable to assume the core place of culture and cultural studies within the realm of sociological enterprise. However, Alexander expanded on that thought with a new vision of culture as a significant milieu of the sociological research. To make it plain, ‘strong program’ is actually encouraging sociologists to ‘go into’ culture as “the deepest structure of social life” (Santoro and Solaroli 54). In this respect, sociologists should clearly understand a tight and interrelated character of social and cultural life because the latter is apparent in the background of the former.

A critical introduction of the ‘strong program’ puts emphasis on the relative cultural autonomy understood by its analytical autonomy in addition to the previously mentioned concrete autonomy. The latter relates to the previous old school of sociology understanding autonomy of culture in terms of its superficial/obvious primary place in the social realm, whereas analytical autonomy delves deep into the meaning of culture. Moreover, the concrete autonomy of culture was the main theoretical framework for Bourdieu. However, its analytical type let him move to the idea of the further theorizing and description of culture in its significant features.

Notably, ‘strong program’ views culture in terms of codes and narratives, having a straightforward effect on the public opinion, collective conscience, and historical development. The main argument is that binary codes along with cultural narratives give powerful grounds to the cultural structure with the emergence of the ‘collective conscience’ circulating in the public sphere (Santoro and Solaroli 57). That is, social groups and communities are able to understand their cultural identity, uniqueness, and the entire world by means of the cultural codes and narratives. They are able to reach the logic of living through shaping the idea of discerning good from bad and learning lessons from the past for the sake of creating a bright future. The ‘strong program’ makes strong public connections among individuals, as it considers cultural structures in a dialogical relation with social interactions. In addition, Alexander expanded the materiality of cultural and social practices by the concept of performance, which is more multidimensional (Santoro and Solaroli 59). It includes a variety of codes, scripts, texts, narratives, meanings, symbols, and others cultural features, making sense as a part of history and a tool of present times. Alexander considers meaning more visible, using the concept of iconicity relating the ‘agentic’ nature of icons in their ability to interact between “aesthetic surface and discursive-moral depth” (Santoro and Solaroli 61).

Therefore, the article highlights ‘strong program’ by Alexander and associates as a sufficient and timely replacement of the theory by Bourdieu and other sociologists. It supports fractalization in cultural theory, touching on hermeneutics and structuralism. However, on the other side, ‘strong program’ states that field and institutions emerge from narration and deeply rooted systems of meaning (Santoro and Solaroli 68). In other words, Alexander’s theory seeks proliferation of the discourse on the sociology of culture in terms of its fractal distinctions. Based on the theory by Bourdieu, ‘strong program’ offered new approaches, methods, and tools to foster the cultural debate on new meanings and issues in culture.

Santoro, Marco and Marco Solaroli. “Contesting culture: Bourdieu and the strong program in cultural sociology.” n.d. 49-76. Print.

Cite This Essay

To export a reference to this paper please select a referencing style below:

YourEssayHelper. (April 2020). Sociology of Culture. Retrieved from https://youressayhelper.com/samples/sociology-of-culture.html

"Sociology of Culture." youressayhelper.com. 04 2020. YourEssayHelper. 03 2024 <https://youressayhelper.com/samples/sociology-of-culture.html>

YourEssayHelper. April 2020. Sociology of Culture. [online]. Available from: https://youressayhelper.com/samples/sociology-of-culture.html [Accessed 24 March 2024].

YourEssayHelper. 2024. "Sociology of Culture." April 27, 2020. https://youressayhelper.com/samples/sociology-of-culture.html.

YourEssayHelper. Sociology of Culture [Internet]. April 2020. [Accessed 24 March 2024]; Available from: https://youressayhelper.com/samples/sociology-of-culture.html.

Your savings

Paper format, instant price check.

Study Guides
Homework Questions

Research Essay Part A (soci)

IMAGES

Culture and society essay
The Cultures Importance To The Society Sociology Essay.docx
3 Ways to Write an Essay on Sociology
Definition of Culture in Sociology: Detailed Explanation
Society AND Culture
essay on sociology for education and how social class affects it

COMMENTS

Culture in Sociology (Definition, Types and Features)
Culture, as used in sociology, is the "way of life" of a particular group of people: their values, beliefs, norms, etc. Think of a typical day in your life. You wake up, get ready, and then leave for school or work. Once the day is over, you probably spend your time with family/friends or pursue your hobbies.
3.1 What Is Culture?
Culture can be material or nonmaterial. Metro passes and bus tokens are part of material culture, as are the buses, subway cars, and the physical structures of the bus stop. Think of material culture as items you can touch-they are tangible. Nonmaterial culture, in contrast, consists of the ideas, attitudes, and beliefs of a society. These are ...
3.1 Culture and the Sociological Perspective
Key Takeaways. Culture refers to the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts that are part of any society. Because culture influences people's beliefs and behaviors, culture is a key concept to the sociological perspective. Many sociologists are wary of biological explanations of behavior, in part because these explanations ...
The concept of culture: Introduction to spotlight series on
The papers encompass other issues as well (e.g., culture as dynamic and changing, culture as constructed by people, applied implications, methodological implications), and ultimately raise many further questions about culture and development that will hopefully inspire developmentalists to think deeply about the concept of culture and to ...
2.2: Culture and the Sociological Perspective
Conclusion. Culture refers to the symbols, language, beliefs, values, and artifacts that are part of any society. Because culture influences people's beliefs and behaviors, culture is a key concept to the sociological perspective. Many sociologists are wary of biological explanations of behavior, in part because these explanations implicitly ...
Sociology: The Study of Culture Essay
The ideologies are developed by socialization. Socialization is the complex process by which individuals come to learn and perform behavior expected of them by society. Socialization teaches habits, ideas, attitudes, and values. This is one of the principle ways by which society preserve themselves. Learning plays an important part in ...
3
Summary. Contemporary cultural sociology specifies the concept of culture by developing three core, irreducible, but compatible, theoretical elements: action, discourse, and cultural production. In doing so, the field has been influenced by a range of broader trends, including pragmatism, cognitive science, semiotics, hermeneutics ...
Culture
This lesson introduces how sociologists think about culture. Culture is one of the fundamental elements of social life and, thus, an essential topic in sociology. Many of the concepts presented here will come up again in almost every subsequent lesson. Because culture is learned so slowly and incrementally, we are often unaware of how it ...
1 Introduction: Cultural Sociology Today
Over recent decades, cultural sociology has been represented for the most part in lesser, sub-handbook ways. During the time other fields were acquiring their handbooks, cultural sociology had to make do with edited collections of previously published papers, initially scavenging component essays from philosophy, cultural history, literature, gender and media studies, and anthropology.
The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology
In his major work The Civil Sphere (2006), Alexander developed a new cultural-sociological theory of democracy, a perspective that provides the foundation The Performance of Politics: Obama's Victory and the Democratic Struggle for Power (2010) and his newest volume, Performative Revolution in Egypt: An Essay in Cultural Power (2011).
Cultural Studies and the Sociology of Culture
In fact, some of the essays in the book are both interesting and quite sophisticated. 50 But Alexander's theoretical formulae, and his conception of sociology as cultural studies, continues to operate with an understanding of discrete layers-the social/institutional, and the cultural/symbolic. This is not quite culture-as-tool kit (and in ...
Essays on the Sociology of Culture
Essays on the Sociology of Culture, originally published in 1956, was one of his most important books. In it he sets out his ideas of intellectuals as producers of culture and explores the possibilities of a democratization of culture. This new edition includes a superb new preface by Bryan Turner which sets Mannheim's study in the appropriate ...
How to Write a Sociological Essay: Explained with Examples
Step 1: Make an Outline. So you have to write a sociological essay, which means that you already either received or have a topic in mind. The first thing for you to do is PLAN how you will attempt to write this essay. To plan, the best way is to make an outline. The topic you have, certainly string some thread in your mind.
The Strong Program in Cultural Sociology
Weber's religious sociology, and most particularly his essay 'Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions' (l958; cf. Alexander 1988) suggested that the quest for salvation was a universal cultural need whose various solutions had forcefully shaped organizational and motivational dynamics in world civilizations.
The Cultures Importance To The Society Sociology Essay
Sociologist defines culture as 'designs for living': the values, beliefs, behaviour, practices and material objects that constitute a peoples way of life. Culture is a tool box of solutions to everyday problems. It is a bridge to the past as well as a guide to the future. One classic account puts it like this.
(PDF) An essay on culture
An Essay on Culture | Stephan F uchs, A dan Christian Freitas. operates in such a way that it decides what art is. Art is that, and it can only. that, which is recognized, handled, and valued or ...
Culture Essay
Purpose: For this essay, we will practice our critical thinking and our inter-cultural appreciation by analyzing a culture, subculture, or sub-community. Assignment: Choose a culture, subculture, or sub-community to focus on. This can be either a culture that you are a member of or a culture you want to learn more about.
PDF American culture: A sociological perspectives
culture. The United States of America is a North American nation that is the world's most dominant economic and military power. Likewise, its cultural imprint spans the world, led in large part by its popular culture expressed in music, movies and television. The culture of the United States of America is
683 Sociology Essay Topics & Good Ideas
683 Sociology Essay Topics & Good Ideas. Sociology essay topics cover broad concepts of human society, exploring varied areas, such as social behavior, norms, relationships, and structures. Some themes may scrutinize the influence of culture, gender, religion, and ethnicity on societal dynamics and consider hot issues, such as social inequality ...
Sociology of Culture Essay
Sociology of Culture. In the reading by Santoro and Solaroli, the main discussion refers to the analysis of the sociology of culture and cultural sociology in terms of the two perspectives, e.g., Pierre Bourdieu and Jeffrey Alexander. The former serves as a background for the criticism suggested by the latter, as Alexander has introduced new ...
Free Essay: Culture: Sociology
Culture is defined as "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; (also) the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time." (n.d.)…. 3345 Words. 14 Pages.
Sociology of Culture Essay #1.pdf
Sociology of Culture Essay #1 The idea of culture is an important aspect of how society runs itself. Cultures enforce moral codes and belief systems that can bring people together or break them apart. Although culture is necessary there are certain cultures that are more harmful to society than beneficial. One of which is rape culture, the ideology that women are to blame for the harm caused ...
Research Essay Part A (soci) (docx)
SOCY457. Sociology document from Yorkville University, 10 pages, 1 Research Essay Part A : Draft Yatin Gholetar 2021020017 Yorkville University SOCI300 Mansi Handa February 25, 2024 f2 How does language reinforce cultural divisions? Outline: Introduction Language and Culture The connection between language and culture.
Free Essay: Sociology- Culture
Sociology- Culture. Culture is everywhere; in the food we eat, the television we watch, our religious practices, and just about anything we do. And everyone's culture is different. Every person has their own set of values, beliefs, traditions, and norms that make up their families own culture.

Culture in Sociology (Definition, Types and Features)

Sociological Definition of Culture

Culture vs Society

Features of Cultures

Types of Culture in Sociology

Theoretical Approaches to Culture in Sociology

1. Functionalism

2. Conflict Theory

3. Symbolic Interactionism

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

3.1 What Is Culture?

Cultural Universals

Sociological Research

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism

Sociology in the Real World

3.1 Culture and the Sociological Perspective

Culture and Biology

Key Takeaways

For Your Review

2.2: Culture and the Sociological Perspective

Learning Objectives

Culture Versus Biology

For Your Review

Sociology 101

Learning Objectives ¶

Deadlines ¶

Discuss (Thursday during class): ¶

Case Study: Obesity ¶

Questions ¶

Lesson Keywords ¶

The least you need to know ¶

Extra Resources ¶

Other Resources ¶

The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology

Signed in as

Personal account

Institutional access

IP based access

Sign in through your institution

Sign in with a library card

Society Members

Sign in through society site

Sign in using a personal account

Viewing your signed in accounts

Signed in but can't access content

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

InVisible Culture

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

How to Write a Sociological Essay: Explained with Examples

Phase I: Preparing for the Essay

Step 2: Start Reading

Step 3: Make Notes

Phase II: Write a Sociological Essay

Step 4: Writing a Title, Subtitle, Abstract, and Keywords

Step 5: Writing the Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusion

Step 6: Citation and Referencing

Phase III: Editing

Center for Cultural Sociology

Page Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Fault Line and its Consequences

3. Culture in Social Theory: From the Classics to the 1960s

4. Weak Programs in Contemporary Cultural Theory

5. Steps Towards a Strong Program

6. Conclusions

683 Sociology Essay Topics & Good Ideas

Best Sociology Essay Topics

Easy Sociology Essay Topics

Interesting Sociology Essay Topics

Sociology Essay Topics for High School

Sociology Essay Topics for College Students

Essay Topics in Educational Sociology

Sociology Essay Topics on Interpersonal Communication

Sociology Essay Topics on Aging & the Elderly

Crime & Deviance Sociology Essay Topics

Sociology Essay Topics on Education & Inequality

Family Sociology Essay Topics

Sociology Essay Topics on Human Rights

Sociology Essay Topics on Inequality & Social Stratification

Marriage & Divorce Sociology Essay Topics