Abstract
In his contribution to this issue, Smith argues that sociology’s house of culture is built on a foundation of sand. In my brief response to Smith, I dispute the claim that culture is in trouble and question the methods and motives behind Smith’s critique. I then indicate the common ground characterizing the work of contemporary culture scholars. Drawing upon my fieldnotes and observations of culture in action, I define culture as a suprasubjective system of signification creating intersubjective senses or ideas that are distinct from the materiality, function, immediacy, or face value of any particular people, objects, words, thoughts, and actions. I argue that this culture concept, which I see as theoretically consistent with the work of most cultural sociologists and sociologists of culture, satisfies many of Smith’s requirement that an acceptable culture concept specify culture’s location, powers, limits, and relationship to subjectivity, and clearly theorize meaning and its relationship to culture.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Author’s independent analysis of American Sociological Association section tallies available at http://www.asanet.org/sections/CountsLastFiveYears.cfm.
Jeffrey Alexander, Karen Cerulo, Paul DiMaggio, Gary Alan Fine, John R. Hall, Michele Lamont, John Mohr, Lynette Spillman, Ann Swidler, Diane Vaughn, Robert Wuthnow, Viviana Zelizer, to name just a few leading sociologists working in the area of culture.
In his contributions to a debate about critical theory on the sociology blog, orgtheory.net, Smith wrote, “Cultural sociology, for instance, has been screwed up by some of this for a long time, for example in the form of the great influence of Swidler’s 1986 piece, which launched more problems than it answered” (https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/a-word-on-critical-realism/)
” Meaning is a primal or first-order fact of human existence that is difficult to define precisely. Yet the making of meaning is real, important, and ineliminable in human life (Smith 2010, p. 49).
While subjectivity is not an important element of culture, it is often a very crucial element of research on the impact that culture has on human life.
“The reflecting subject, in search of meaning, self-understanding, is a linguistic subject, a subject which is given to and which knows itself by means of the language it inhabits” (Madison 1995, p. 81).
References
Alexander, J. C. (2002). On the social construction of moral universals: the `Holocaust' from war crime to trauma drama. European Journal of Social Theory, 5–85. doi:10.1177/1368431002005001001.
Alexander, J. C. (2010). The performance of politics: Obama's victory and the democratic struggle for power. Oxford University Press.
Franzen, J. (2001). The Corrections: A Novel: Farrar. Straus and Giroux.
Madison, G. B. (1995). Ricoeur and the hermeneutics of the subject. The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, 75–92.
Mead, G. H. (2009 [1934]). Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist: University of Chicago Press.
Mohr, J. W., & Rawlings, C. (2012). Four ways to measure culture: social science, hermeneutics, and the cultural turn (pp. 70–113). The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology.
Reed, I. A. (2011). Interpretation and social knowledge: On the use of theory in the human sciences. University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1971). The model of the text: meaningful action considered as a text. Social Research, 529–562.
Ricoeur, P. (1988). Time and narrative. Vol. 3. University of Chicago Press.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
Sargent, D. A. (2005 Januray 18). Speaker: Nation forgets the real King, Lewiston Sun Journal, 9(10):p. B1.
Shepherd, H. (2011). The cultural context of cognition: what the Implicit Association test tells Us about how culture Works1. Sociological Forum, 26(1), 121–143. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01227.x.
Smith, C. (2010). What is a person?: Rethinking humanity, social life, and the moral good from the person up. University of Chicago Press.
Spillman, L. (1997). Nation and commemoration: Creating national identities in the United States and Australia. Cambridge University Press.
Spillman, L. (2012). Solidarity in strategy: Making business meaningful in American trade associations. University of Chicago Press.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 273–286.
Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: a dual process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1675–1715. doi:10.1086/597179.
Voyer, A. M. (2013). Strangers and neighbors: Multiculturalism, conflict, and community in America. Cambridge University Press.
Voyer, A. (2015). Meanings, motives and action. Ethnography, 1466138115592414.
Zahavi, D., & Stjernfelt, F. (2002). One hundred years of phenomenology: Husserl's logical investigations revisited (Vol. 164). Springer Science & Business Media.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Voyer, A.M. Consensus on Culture in American Sociology: Reply to Smith. Am Soc 47, 442–453 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-016-9310-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-016-9310-4