Skip to main content

Objects, Words, and Bodies in Space: Bringing Materiality into Cultural Analysis

Abstract

What can actor-network theory’s approach to analyzing objects offer to cultural sociology? To answer this question we ask a more specific one: How does materiality affect people’s experience of art in a museum exhibition? Research at two museums suggests that non-human agents—object and words—interact with human bodies to choreograph the art encounter. This process works through interactions between two processes of emplacement: physical position and cognitive location. Position guides location in the process of meaning-making, a relationship mediated by three mechanisms: distance, legibility, and orientation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. 1.

    We conceive of STS as an interdisciplinary field that draws predominantly from sociological, historical and philosophical literature (Pickering 1995, 1, n. 1). Throughout this paper we primarily refer to STS scholarship that has informed sociological studies of science by focusing on the objects, routines and practices constituting the production of scientific knowledge.

  2. 2.

    For example if a lost walker asks someone she encounters on the road “Where am I?” and the reply is, “You’re a mile south of Bristol,” the answer describes position. If a professor goes off on a tangent during a lecture and then asks, “Where am I?,” and a student responds, “You were talking about Weber’s definition of sociology,” this answer describes location. Sociologists typical regard “place” as space that is meaningful (e.g., Gieryn 2000, 465), and while we agree, we contend that the physical relationships among objects allow for meaning to emerge or fail to emerge.

  3. 3.

    This paper focuses on the Weberian strand in cultural sociology that emphasizes meaning-making and socially-shaped cognition, notably prominent in sociological analysis of art, and pays less attention to other significant strands such as ritual analysis (Alexander 2004; Collins 2004), production-of-culture (Becker 1982; Crane 1992; Peterson and Anand 2004), or theories of culture-in-action (Swidler 1986; Vaisey 2009).

  4. 4.

    In an important turn in the late 1970s, laboratory ethnographers studying the routines of scientists in the lab viewed science as work, practice and talk, examining the role objects played in making that work possible (Knorr-Cetina 1981; Latour and Woolgar 1986/1979; Lynch 1985). Ushering in this “practice turn” first broadened the concept of agency to include material agency (Pickering 1995, 9–13).

  5. 5.

    Casper and Clarke (1998, 257) have highlighted how the “symmetry” principle in ANT discounts some of its political implications by reducing all human and non-human actors to the same analytic stature in sociological studies of social interaction. We argue both objects and people can potentially shape interpretation and action, while still leaving room for inequalities in how power operates with different configurations of actants, rendering some actants more or less powerful in shaping meaning and action. Relevant to this paper, Hetherington (2000, 2002, 2003) has explored these possibilities in studying the museum experiences of visitors with visual impairments. In an alternative approach that also embraces the agency of objects and the power of materiality, Gell (1998) argues that art objects are “secondary agents” that distribute the agency and intentions of the people producing or circulating them.

  6. 6.

    In noting this we align with scholars who question ANT’s minimization of external forces that might shape action within a given network. Frickel (1996, 31–34) has pointed out that actor-network theorists “typically leave open the questions of when and where external forces may be invoked as useful explanations for the success or failure of scientific or technological projects. Their implicit answer typically is never” (see also Collins and Yearley 1992).

  7. 7.

    This is Latour’s distinction between when actants are intermediaries versus mediators (Latour 2005, 37–42). Intermediaries are objects that perfectly transport meaning without transforming it. No matter how complex the internal dimensions of a mediator, the meaning is clear, singular, and predictable. Mediators, on the other hand, “transform, translate, distort, and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry” (Latour 2005, 39).

  8. 8.

    In offering this, we wish to highlight the small number of studies drawing upon ANT in their study of museums (Acord 2010; Hetherington 1999, 2000). Latour himself (1987, 225) has highlighted how museum staff’s growth, conservation and display of their collections manipulate complex scientific ideas into manageable representations.

  9. 9.

    Portland, Maine is a small city with big cultural aspirations. The Portland Museum of Art occupies three buildings, ranging from an 1801 federal design house to a 1983 post-modern main building designed by I. M. Pei’s firm, in a rather seedy downtown that, typically, urban officials have labeled “the Arts District.” Its collection of 17,000 pieces has a particular focus on Maine artists—Winslow Homer, Marsden Hartley, Andrew Wyeth—though it also has extensive American and world holdings (its website boasts that the PMA has the largest collection of European art north of Boston). Each year the museum gets 160,000 visitors, mounts roughly 15 changing exhibitions, and has an annual budget of $4.6 million.

  10. 10.

    The Whitney is the world’s preeminent repository of American art. Its collection consists of approximately 19,000 works of 20th and 21st century American art, with a particular focus on art from the early 1900s. The museum has a longstanding commitment to showcasing the work of young and emerging artists, and its signature exhibition, the Biennial, is the world’s leading survey of contemporary American art. On average, the museum serves 350,000 to 400,000 visitors annually and there are nine to 12 major exhibitions on view over the course of any given year.

  11. 11.

    While counting and mapping is a time-honored technique within museum and visitor studies (see Falk and Dierking 1992; Hooper-Greenhill 2006 for a review), these strategies have typically been used to assess how exhibition traffic varies by social group so as to generalize more broadly. However, recent literature in the vein of “new museology” (Vergo 1989) has called for a move away from behaviorist studies of visitor attributes to more ethnographically informed research focusing on how visitors interact with installations and negotiate their meaning (Fyfe 2006, 43–44). This move further calls for bridging the practical work of museums with more theoretically and empirically informed academic study (Hooper-Greenhill 2006; Macdonald 2006). In offering ANT and cultural sociology as apposite theoretical frameworks for studying how people make meaning in museums, we suggest that in conceiving of visitors as active interpreters, researchers should not lose sight of how material environments act upon people to constrain and enable those interpretations.

  12. 12.

    Babon (2006) has made this point quite clearly by demonstrating how cognitive understandings of place affects meaning-making in the interpretation of public art.

  13. 13.

    “Cattelan intended that viewers first approach this diminutive figure from the back and then recognize Hitler when encountering HIM from the front. The scale of the figure, in relation to the physical stature of viewers, shifts the power relationship, perhaps raising conflicting responses, yet it does not diminish the potency of Hitler’s image and the magnitude of his crimes. HIM may serve as a reminder that the face of evil is not always easily recognizable and that individuals can cause terrible destruction.” Description from the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago website, accessed July 25, 2012 http://www.mcachicago.org/exhibitions/now/2012/6.

  14. 14.

    This would contribute to the growing body of work on the sociology of emotions (Collins 2004; Goodwin et al. 2001; Gould 2009; Summers-Effler 2010).

  15. 15.

    We borrow this phrase from Clarke and Fujimura 1992; see also Casper and Clarke 1998; Pinch and Bijker 1987. For discussion of differences in interpretation between scientific and artistic objects, see Collins and Evans 2007, 117–119.

References

  1. Acord, Sophia. 2010. Beyond the head: The practical work of curating contemporary art. Qualitative Sociology 33: 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Acord, Sophia Krzys, and Tia DeNora. 2008. Culture and the arts: From art worlds to arts-in-action. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619: 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Akrich, Madeleine. 1992. The De-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, 205–224. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Akrich, Madeleine, and Bruno Latour. 1992. A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, 259–264. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2004. Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy. Sociological Theory 22: 527–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Babon, Kim. 2006. Composition, coherence, and attachment: The critical role of context in reception. Poetics 34: 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Becker, Howard S. 1982. Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Benezra, Neal. 1994. Introduction. In Bruce Nauman: Exhibition catalogue and catalogue raisonne, ed. Joan Simon et al., 8–15. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bischof, Libby and Susan Danly. 2011. Maine moderns: Art in Seguinland, 1900–1940. New Haven: Yale University Press; Portland: Portland Museum of Art.

  11. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bourdieu, Pierre and Alain Darbel, with Dominique Schnapper, et al. 1990/1969. The love of art: European art museums and their public. Merriman: Stanford University Press.

  13. Brain, David. 1994. Cultural production as “society in the making:” Architecture as an exemplar of the social construction of cultural artifacts. In The sociology of culture: Emerging theoretical perspectives, ed. Diana Crane, 191–220. Blackwell.

  14. Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieux Bay. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge?, ed. John Law, 196–229. Keele: Sociological Review Monograph.

  15. Callon, Michel. 1987. Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker et al., 83–103. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Casper, Monica J., and Adele E. Clarke. 1998. Making the Pap Smear into the ‘right tool’ for the Job: Cervical Cancer Screening in the USA, circa 1940–95. Social Studies of Science 28: 255–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cerulo, Karen. 2009. Nonhumans in social interaction. Annual Review of Sociology 35: 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clarke, Adele E., and Joan H. Fujimura (eds.). 1992. The right tools for the job: At work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Collins, Harry M., and Steven Yearley. 1992. Epistemological chicken. In Science as practice and culture, ed. Andrew Pickering, 301–326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Crane, Diana. 1992. The production of culture: Media and the urban arts. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  23. D’Andrade, Roy G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Davey, Gareth. 2005. What is museum fatigue? Visitor Studies Today 8: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  25. de la Fuente, Eduardo. 2007. The ‘new sociology of art:’ Putting art back into social science approaches to the arts. Cultural Sociology 1: 409–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. de la Fuente, Eduardo. 2010. In defence of theoretical and methodological pluralism in the sociology of art: A critique of Georgina Born’s Programmatic Essay. Cultural Sociology 4: 217–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. DeNora, Tia. 2000. Music in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. DeNora, Tia. 2003. After Adorno: Rethinking music sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology 23: 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dubin, Steven C. 1992. Arresting images: Impolitic art and uncivil actions. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Epstein, Steven. 2008. Culture and science/technology: Rethinking knowledge, power, materiality, and nature. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619: 165–182. Sage.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Falk, John, and Lynn Dierking. 1992. The museum experience. Washington, D.C.: Whalesback Books.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Frickel, Scott. 1996. Engineering heterogeneous accounts: The case of submarine thermal reactor mark-I. Science, Technology & Human Values 21: 28–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fyfe, Gordon. 2006. Sociology and the social aspects of museums. In A companion to museum studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald, 33–49. Blackwell.

  35. Gell, Alfred. 1998. Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford.

  36. Gibson, J.J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, acting and knowing, ed. Robert Shaw and John Bransford, 67–82. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gibson, J.J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  38. Gieryn, Thomas F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 463–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gomart, Emilie, and Antoine Hennion. 1999. A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. In Actor-network theory and after, ed. John Law and John Hassard, 220–224. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Goodwin, Jeff, James M. Jasper, and Francesca Polletta. 2001. Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Gould, Deborah B. 2009. Moving politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s fight against AIDS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Griswold, Wendy. 1987. The fabrication of meaning: Literary interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1077–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Halle, David. 1996. Inside culture: Art and class in the American home. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The meaning of style. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Heinich, Natalie. 2000. From rejection of contemporary art to culture war. In Rethinking comparative cultural sociology, eds. Michele Lamont and Laurent Thévenot, 170–210. Cambridge University Press.

  46. Hennion, Antoine. 1989. An intermediary between production and consumption: The producer of popular music. Science, Technology & Human Values 14: 400–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hetherington, Kevin. 1999. From blindness to blindness: Museums, heterogeneity and the subject. In Actor network theory and after, ed. John Law and John Hassard, 51–73. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hetherington, Kevin. 2000. Museums and the visually impaired: The spatial politics of access. Sociological Review 48: 444–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hetherington, Kevin. 2002. The unsightly: Visual impairment, touch and the Parthenon frieze. Theory, Culture and Society 19: 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hetherington, Kevin. 2003. Accountability and disposal: Visual impairment and the museum. Museum and Society 1: 104–115.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 1992. Museums and the shaping of knowledge. Routledge.

  52. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean. 2006. Studying visitors. In A companion to museum studies, ed. Sharon Macdonald, 362–376. West Sussex: Blackwell.

  53. Johnson, Jim. 1988. Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems 35: 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Keane, Webb. 2003. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Language and Communication 23: 409–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Latour, Bruno. 1988. The pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Latour, Bruno. 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, 225–258. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.

  61. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986/1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  62. Law, John. 1986. On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, Navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge?, ed. John Law, 234–263. Keele: Sociological Review Monograph.

  63. Law, John. 1987. Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, ed. Wiebe E. Bijker et al., 111–134. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lynch, Michael. 1985. Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Macdonald, Sharon (ed). 2006. Expanding museum studies: An introduction. In A companion to museum studies, 1–12. West Sussex: Blackwell.

  66. Martin, John Levi. 2011. The explanation of social action. Oxford University Press.

  67. McDonnell, Terence E. 2010. Cultural objects as objects: materiality, urban space, and the interpretation of AIDS Campaigns in Accra, Ghana. American Journal of Sociology 115: 1800–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Milkie, Melissa. 1999. Social comparisons, reflected appraisals, and mass media: The impact of pervasive beauty images on black and white girls’ self-concepts. Social Psychology Quarterly 62: 190–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Molotch, Harvey. 2010. Learning from the Loo. In Toilet: Public restrooms and the politics of sharing, ed. Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren, 1–20. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Mukerji, Chandra. 1994. Toward a sociology of material culture: Science studies, cultural studies and the meaning of things. In The sociology of culture: Emerging theoretical perspectives, ed. Diana Crane, 143–162. West Sussex: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Peterson, Richard A., and N. Anand. 2004. The production of culture perspective. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 311–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Pickering, Andrew. 1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1987. The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, eds. Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch, 17–50. MIT Press.

  74. Prior, Nick. 2008. Putting a glitch in the field: Bourdieu, actor network theory and contemporary music. Cultural Sociology 2: 301–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Relyea, Lane. 1995. Cast against type. Artforum 33: 62–69+.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Schor, Juliet B., and Douglas B. Holt. 2000. The consumer society reader. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Senie, Harriet R. 2002. The tilted arc controversy: Dangerous precedent? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sewell, William. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98: 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Shively, JoEllen. 1992. Cowboys and Indians: Perceptions of Western films among American Indians and Anglos. American Sociological Review 57: 725–734.

  80. Simon, Joan, et al. (eds.). 1994. Bruce Nauman: Exhibition catalogue and catalogue raisonne. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Summers-Effler, Erika. 2010. Laughing saints and righteous heroes: Emotional rhythms in social movement groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  82. Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51: 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Vaisey, Stephen. 2009. Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology 114: 1675–1715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Vergo, Peter. 1989. The new museology. London: Reaktion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Wagner-Pacific, Robin, and Barry Schwartz. 1991. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Commemorating a difficult past. American Journal of Sociology 90: 72–96.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Whitley, Richard D. 1972. Black boxism and the sociology of science: A discussion of the major developments in the field. In The sociology of science, ed. Paul Halmos, 62–92. University of Keele Press.

  87. Witkin, Robert and Tia DeNora. 1997. Aesthetic materials and aesthetic agency. Newsletter of the Sociology of Culture Section of the American Sociological Association 12: 1–6.

  88. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1997. Social mindscapes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Zukin, Sharon. 2004. Point of purchase: How shopping changed American culture. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors worked equally on this paper. We want to thank the curators of the exhibitions under consideration in this paper: the co-curators of Maine Moderns, Senior Curator Susan Danly at the Portland Museum of Art and Professor Libby Bishof of the University of Southern Maine, and at the Whitney Museum of American Art, Dana Miller, Curator, Permanent Collection and Diana Kamin, Senior Curatorial Assistant. We appreciate the great feedback from our anonymous reviewers and guest editors Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Diana Graizbord, and Michael Rodríguez-Muñiz. In addition, we would like to thank Fernando Dominguez-Rubio and Jennifer Lena for comments on earlier drafts. A version of this paper was presented at the American Sociological Association meetings in 2012. Please send any comments to terence.e.mcdonnell@nd.edu.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terence E. McDonnell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Griswold, W., Mangione, G. & McDonnell, T.E. Objects, Words, and Bodies in Space: Bringing Materiality into Cultural Analysis. Qual Sociol 36, 343–364 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9264-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cultural sociology
  • Actor-network theory
  • Meaning
  • Materiality
  • Art
  • Museums