Abstract
Previous research has suggested that in cultural production fields the concatenation of eminence explains success, defined as influence and innovation. We propose that individuals in fields as diverse as philosophy, literature, mathematics, painting, or architecture gain visibility by cumulating the eminence of others connected to them across and within generations. We draw on interaction ritual chain and social movement theories, and use evidence from the field of modernist architecture, to formulate a model of how networks of very strong ties generate motivations and emotional enthusiasm, change reputations, and form collective movements that over time transform the structure of cultural fields. Because major aesthetic innovations break sharply with older styles, they need very strong group solidarity over a long period of time to propagate a new standard of practice. We propose mutual halo effects, i.e., the reciprocal reinforcement of upstream and downstream prestige on a given individual node, as the key factor accounting for success in a cultural production field. We discuss the relevance of these results for building a model of influence and innovation in cultural production fields in which networks—reshaped by shifting technological, political, and economic conditions—trigger new styles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For some countries, Guillén (2006) consulted specialized local histories to bring the total number of architects per country up to 10. These received a reputation score of zero. The dataset includes very famous architects, as well as others little known outside their home countries.
Only 92 architects appear in Fig. 1. The other 28 lack strong ties to the network; they are included in calculations of network patterns, but with ties at zero. For the complete list of the architects, see Guillén (2006). The three Dutch architects lacking strong ties, and thus not depicted in Fig. 1, are Gerrit Rietveld, JM Van der Mey, and Robert Van t’Hoff.
Thus, our approach differs from previous analyses of inter-generational networks of artists (e.g., Lang and Lang 1988, 1990). Their argument about a generation having a stake in the reputations of their predecessors because it legitimizes their own practice is congruent with our analysis in part. Like Lang and Lang, we make the point about the upstream, but we also stress that successful architects are those who work actively at building a downstream network of successful followers, which reflects well on them decades down the road.
Perret was a leader of the French movement of early modernists, known especially for his innovative work in reinforced concrete; this was one of the key new materials of modern architecture, which displaced building with traditional materials of brick and stone. Thus Perret’s influence was less in the flamboyant realm of style, visible to the public, and more in the technical realm of skills propagated to the inner group of professional architects, which made possible their striking new designs in new materials. Behrens was an innovative insider for professional architects in more of a social-organizational sense; he pioneered the social practice of long-term, collaborative projects of a quasi-public nature, as head of design for a large electric firm; this foreshadowed the collective practices of the German modernist architects, above all in public housing projects (Larson 1993, pp. 29–49; Guillén 2006, pp. 53–56).
Obstfeld (2005) shows, similarly, that successful innovative groups in the engineering division of an automobile manufacturer not only import novel combinations from bridge ties, but actively recruit new members to join them [the “tertius iungens,” or third who joins, orientation]; the resulting dense groups with very strong ties are best able to carry through an innovation.
This would be even more apparent in our data if we extended our analysis of leading architects to the second half of the twentieth century. The downstream network flowing from Johnson includes the leaders of the postmodernist movement in architecture. The Yale architecture department, Johnson’s organizational base, trained Eero Saarinen, whose firm in turn launched the career of Cesar Pelli (who later became the Dean of architecture at Yale); Pelli in turn was associated with the early career of Frank Gehry (Larson 1993, pp. 289–290). These latter names are among the most eminent of the postmodernist architects—a rebellious movement but nevertheless a “revolution within the citadel” of the preceding network of eminence.
Among the most famous Chicago buildings of the 1920s were the Chicago Tribune Tower (built by Raymond Hood) with its Gothic façade; its rival directly across Michigan Avenue, the Wrigley Building, carried graceful white Italian Renaissance motifs on its upper stories. Other skyscrapers put Moorish, Romanesque, or Victorian decorations on the outside of their modern steel-frame construction.
Modernist architecture took off when it acquired a new base not just for training but for commercial work: notably the AEG workshop headed by Behrens between 1907 and 1914, and then in the 1920s the German civic projects for public housing, headed by Martin Wagner in Berlin and Ernst May in Frankfurt (Larson 1993, pp. 36–41). The modernist architects also used as bases to propagandize the new style professional associations (such as the Werkbund for the applied arts, dating from 1907), the Bauhaus school, established under Gropius in 1919 (which brought together both painters and architects as teachers), and the CIAM (International Congress for Modern Architecture), founded in 1928 to promote leading members such as Corbusier in international design competitions.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderson, S. (2000). Peter Behrens and a new architecture for the twentieth century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ansell, C. L. (2001). Schism and solidarity in social movements: The politics of labor in the French Third Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bacon, M. (2001). Le Corbusier in America: Travels in the land of the timid. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Banham, R. (1980). Theory and design in the first machine age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [1960].
Barr, A. H., Jr. (1995). Preface. In H.-R. Hitchcock & P. Johnson (Eds.), The international style (pp. 27–32). New York: W.W. Norton.
Benevolo, L. (1977). History of modern architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [1960].
Benton, T. (1984). Villa Savoye and the architects’ practice. In H. Allen Brooks (Ed.), The Le Corbusier archive (7th ed., pp. ix–xxxi). New York: Garland Architectural Archives.
Blau, J. R. (1984). Architects and firms. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bohigas, O. (1973). Reseña y catálogo de la arquitectura modernista. Barcelona: Lumen.
Bohigas, O. (1998). Modernidad en la arquitectura de la España republicana. Barcelona: Tusquets.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press [1972].
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bucher, R., & Strauss, A. (1961). Professions in process. American Journal of Sociology, 66(4), 325–334.
Buddensieg, T. (1984). Industriekultur: Peter Behrens and the AEG, 1907–1914. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69, 239–264.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
CGP (Centre Georges Pompidou). (1987). Le Corbusier: Une Encyclopédie. Paris: CGP.
Cheever, S. (2006). American Bloomsbury. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cooke, C. (1995). Russian Avant-Garde. London: Academy.
Curtis, W. J. R. (1996). Modern architecture since 1900. London: Phaidon Press [1982].
DeNora, T. (1991). Musical patronage and social change in Beethoven Vienna. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 310–346.
Denora, T. (1995). Beethoven and the construction of genius. Berkeley: University of California Press.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920–1940. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267–292). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1411–1454.
Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory & Society, 37, 1–44.
Etlin, R. A. (1991). Modernism in Italian architecture, 1890–1940. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Farrell, M. (2001). Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics and creative work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ferraz, G. (1965). Warchavchik e a introdução da nova arquitetura no Brasil: 1925 a 1940. São Paulo: Museu de Arte de São Paulo.
Freixa, M. (1986). El Modernismo en España. Madrid: Cátedra.
Frickel, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review, 70, 204–232.
Gartman, D. (2000). Why modern architecture emerged in Europe, not in America: the new class and the aesthetics of technology. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(5), 75–96.
Gartman, D. (2009). From autos to architecture: Fordism and architectural aesthetics in the twentieth century. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Giedion, S. (1982). Space, time, and architecture: The growth of a new tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [1941].
Goffman, E. (1969). Where the action is: Three essays. London: Allen Lane.
Granovetter, M. G. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Guillén, M. F. (2006). The Taylorized beauty of the mechanical: Scientific management and the rise of modernist architecture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hitchcock, H. R. (1971). Architecture: Nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin [1958].
Hitchcock, H., & Johnson, P. (1995). The international style. New York: W. W. Norton [1932].
Hochman, E. S. (1989). Architects of fortune: Mies van der Rohe and the Third Reich. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Jablonowski, U. (1983). “Wo berühren sich die Schaffensgebiete des Technikers und Künstlers?” (Walter Gropius). Beziehungen zwischen dem Dessauer Bauhaus und den Werken des Junkerskonzerns. Dessauer Kalender, pp. 13–30.
Janik, A., & Toulmin, S. (1973). Wittgenstein’s Vienna. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Jencks, C. (1973). Modern movements in architecture. Garden City: Anchor Books.
Johnson, V. (2007). What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 97–127.
Johnson, V. (2008). Backstage at the revolution: How the royal Paris opera survived the end of the old regime. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams. Science, 322, 1259–1262.
Jordy, W. H. (1986). The impact of European modernism in the mid-twentieth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lampugnani, V. M. (1986). Encyclopedia of 20th-century architecture. New York: Harry N. Abrams [1964].
Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1988). Recognition and renown: the survival of artistic reputation. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 79–109.
Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1990). Etched in memory: The building and survival of artistic reputation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Larson, M. S. (1993). Behind the postmodern façade: Architectural change in late twentieth century America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Le Corbusier (Charles Édouard Jeanneret). (1986). Towards a new architecture. New York: Dover [1923].
Mackay, D. (1989). Modern arquitecture in Barcelona (1854–1939). New York: Rizzoli.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul [1927].
Marinetti, F. T. (1973). The Founding and manifesto of futurism. In U. Apollonio (Ed.), Futurist manifestos (pp. 19–24). Boston: MFA Publications [1909].
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Introduction. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101(6), 1628–1660.
Midant, J.-P. (Ed.). (1996). Dictionnaire de l’architecture du XXe siècle. Paris: Institut Français d’Architecture.
Middleton, R. (Ed.). (1982). The Beaux-arts and nineteenth-century French architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mische, A. (2008). Partisan publics: Communication and contention across Brazilian youth activist networks. Princeton University Press.
Muriel, E. (Ed.). (1994). Contemporary architects. New York: St. James’ Press [1980].
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius lugens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130.
Padgett, J. F. (1997). The emergence of simple ecologies of skill: A hypercycle approach to economic organization. In B. Arthur, S. Durlauf, & D. Lane (Eds.), The economy as an evolving complex system II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319.
Padgett, J. F., & McLean, P. D. (2006). Organizational invention and elite transformation: the birth of partnership systems in renaissance Florence. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1463–1568.
Pfammatter, U. (2000). The making of the modern architect and engineer. Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Placzek, A. K. (Ed.). (1982). The Macmillan encyclopedia of architects. New York: Free Press.
Prakesh, V. (2002). Chandigarh’s Le Corbusier: The struggle for modernity in postcolonial India. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795–843.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.
Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 101–133.
Schorske, C. (1981). Fin-de-Siecle Vienna: Politics and culture. New York: Vintage.
Scully, V. (1974). Modern architecture: The architecture of democracy. New York: George Braziller [1961].
Sharp, D. (Ed.). (1981). Sources of modern architecture: A critical bibliography. London and New York: Granada [1967].
Smith, C. B. (1967). Builders in the sun: Five Mexican architects. New York: Architectural Book Publishing.
Smith, T. (1993). Making the modern: Industry, art, and design in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solà-Morales, I. (1984). Gaudí. New York: Rizzoli.
Timms, E. (1989). Karl Kraus, apocalyptic satirist: Culture and catastrophe in Habsburg Vienna. New Haven: Yale University.
Uzzi, B. (2008). A social network’s changing statistical properties and the quality of human innovation. Journal of Physics: Mathematical and Theoretical. 41 224023 (12pp).
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
Watson, S. (1991). Strange bedfellows. The first American Avant-Garde. New York: Abbeville.
Weston, R. (1996). Modernism. New York: Phaidon.
White, H. C. (1993). Careers and creativity. Social forces in the arts. Boulder: Westview Press.
White, H. C., & White, C. (1965). Canvases and careers: Institutional change in the French painting world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of science. Science, 316, 1036–1039.
Zablocki, B. (1980). Alienation and charisma: A study of contemporary American communes. New York: Free Press.
Zald, M. N., & Useem, B. (1987). Movement and countermovement interaction. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social movements in an organizational society (pp. 247–272). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Zuckerman, H. (1967). Nobel Laureates in science: patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review, 32, 391–403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Collins, R., Guillén, M.F. Mutual halo effects in cultural production: the case of modernist architecture. Theor Soc 41, 527–556 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-012-9181-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-012-9181-9