Skip to main content
Log in

Video games, contestation, and meaning: a strong program approach to studying artistic legitimation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
American Journal of Cultural Sociology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For a creative expression to be widely recognized as art, sociology of art scholars argue that proponents must apply a legitimizing discourse that supporters of past art forms have successfully used. Unfortunately, sociology of art scholars have ignored the affective connections people have with these art forms and how proponents draw upon these meanings in their push for legitimation. To be sensitive to this dimension, scholars must adopt principles from the Strong Program (SP) of cultural sociology. To demonstrate the insights we gain from a SP approach, I examine how video game fans responded to disparaging comments made by the prominent film critic Roger Ebert. My findings indicate that certain aspects of fans’ push for artistic recognition are consistent with previous research. However, fans also express meaningful attachments to video games, and this affective dimension influences the narratives they construct in their pushes for legitimation. Moreover, the narratives fans construct disagree on whether video games are or can become art. Despite these disagreements, all the narratives emerge from the same affective foundation. These findings demonstrate the need for sociologists to examine how pushes for artistic legitimation build upon a deeply felt foundation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout this article, I use the terms “mainstream civil society” and “mainstream media” in recognition that civil society contains a multitude of publics that possess different levels of influence (Jacobs 2000). “Mainstream civil society” refers to the publics whose interests, concerns, cultural codes, and narratives the dominant public sphere is most likely to reflect. Consistent with Jacobs (2000), “mainstream media” refers to the media outlets that have a large influence on agenda setting, public opinion, and what groups, voices, and positions get broadcast into the dominant public sphere.

  2. Sociology of art scholars often use the term “art world” to describe the group of proponents involved in a push for artistic legitimation. These scholars base this conceptualization from Becker (1982), who defines art worlds as “the network of people whose cooperative activity, organized via their joint knowledge of conventional means of doing things, produces the kind of art works that art world is noted for” (p. 10). However, this conceptualization severely simplifies the complex networks of individuals and groups involved in creating, disseminating, discussing, and consuming art. In doing so, this framework privileges certain types of actors and institutions and thus erroneously portrays everyone involved with a particular art form as engaged in a mutually agreed-upon quest for economic capital and/or cultural status (Eyerman 2006; McCormick 2012). In this work, I draw from research on media and civil society (Jacobs 2000) and instead use the term “publics” to indicate how a variety of groups often form around a particular art form and how these groups often interpret the meaning, purpose, or significance of this art form in different and sometimes competing ways.

  3. Ebert (2005a).

  4. Ebert (2005b).

  5. Ebert (2005c).

  6. De Marco (2005) and Reimer (2005).

  7. Ebert (2010a).

  8. Ebert (2010b).

  9. Totilo (2013) and Myers (2013).

  10. NeoGAF (2005)

  11. NeoGAF (2007, 2010).

  12. Totilo (2012) and The New York Times (2014a).

  13. See for example Totilo (2014b) and Hamilton (2014) .

  14. Orsini (2010).

  15. Crecente (2010).

  16. Hamilton (2012).

  17. Thomsen (2012).

  18. Cox (2012).

  19. Killingsworth (2012).

  20. Totilo (2014).

  21. Wilson (2007).

  22. Tavinor (2010).

  23. Santiago (2010).

  24. Tavinor (2010).

  25. Wilson (2007).

  26. Santiago (2010) .

  27. McWhertor (2007).

  28. Totilo (2014).

  29. Good (2010).

  30. Clark (2012).

  31. Alexander (2010).

  32. Clark (2012).

  33. Alexander (2010).

  34. Rogers (2010, 2009).

  35. Chayka. (2010).

  36. Parker (2013).

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jingsi Christina Wu, Ronald Jacobs, Eleanor Townsley, Richard Lachmann, Aaron Major, Ian Sheinheit, Matthias Revers, and Timothy Malacarne for their helpful comments and support. I would also like to thank the editor, Jeffrey Alexander, and the anonymous reviewers for providing detailed and encouraging feedback that helped to greatly improve this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian McKernan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKernan, B. Video games, contestation, and meaning: a strong program approach to studying artistic legitimation. Am J Cult Sociol 7, 174–213 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-018-0060-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-018-0060-3

Keywords

Navigation