The British are Coming...Again! The Hidden Agenda of "Cultural Studies?

Cultural Studies. by Lawrence Grossberg; Cary Nelson; Paula Treichler

Review by: Steven Jay Sherwood, Philip Smith and Jeffrey C. Alexander
Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May, 1993), pp. 370-375
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2074504 .
Accessed: 03/09/2014 13:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.174.75.10 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:13:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ESSAYS
370 FEATURED
The BritishAre Coming. . . Again! The Hidden Agenda of
"CulturalStudies"
STEVEN JAY SHERWOOD
PHILIP SMITH
JEFFREY C. ALEXANDER
University
ofCalifornia,
Los Angeles
Cultural Studies is a substantialvolume,
consistingof some fortyessays, many of Cultural editedbyLawrenceGross-
Studies,
berg, Cary Nelson,and Paula Treichler.
them from a 1990 conferenceheld at NewYork:Routledge, 1991.800 pp. $59.50
University of Illinoisat Champaign-Urbana. cloth.ISBN: 0-415-90351-3. $24.95 paper.
The empiricalcontent of thepapersis varied, ISBN:0-415-90345-9.
stimulating, and topical,stretching fromthe
historyof culturalstudies to gender and
sexuality,colonialismand postcolonialism, culturalstudies, they are, in fact, sadly
race and ethnicity,and the politics of "ignorant"of the real theoreticalcommit-
aesthetics.The level of scholarshipand mentsthatallow workactuallyto go under
writing is generallyhigh,thearguments often thisname. "Some UnitedStatesacademics,"
provocativeand challenging.It is, indeed, theylament,"are willingto generalizeabout
becauseofitsscopeandpotential significance cultural studies in complete or virtually
thatwe cannotallow thisintellectual effortto completeignoranceof the work that runs
pass withoutchallenge. from[RaymondWilliams]to manyof the
Cultural Studies advocates not generic contributors in this book" (p. 9). Shaking
culturalsociology,butrathera specificbrand theirheadsin despair,theeditorsremarkthat
of work.Its sheerbulk,at almost800 pages, "it is hardto thinkof anotherbodyof work
is certainlyone testament to itsambition.No where that level of ignorancecould be
tentative expeditionintouncharted territory,sustainedunchallenged"(p. 9).
thisis nothingless thanan attempt to put a But is the problemone of ignoranceor
definitivestampon the empiricalstudyof simplyignoring? Whiletheeditors'scientific
culture itself, particularlyin the United concern for the steady accumulationof
States;for,accordingto theeditors,"It is the knowledgeis admirable,the failureof the
future of culturalstudiesin theUnitedStates specifically Britishversionof culturalstudies
thatseems to presentthe greatestneed for to penetrate Americansocial sciencemaynot
reflection and debate"(p. 10). resultfroma lack of information. Perhaps,
"The issue for U.S. practitioners," the aftercarefulconsideration, Americansocial
editorstellus, "is whatkindof workwill be scientists who practiceculturalstudiesin the
identifiedwith culturalstudies" (p. 10). 1990s have rejectedthe neo-Marxisttheory
Despite what initiallypromisesto be an uponwhichBritishculturalstudiesis based.
ecumenical tone-we are told that it is That, at least, is the thesis we wish to
"probablyimpossibleto agreeon any essen- pursuehere.We regardCulturalStudiesas a
tial definitionor uniquenarrative of cultural self-consciousattempt by theonce and future
studies"-we are immediatelyinformedin membersof the Centre for Contemporary
the next paragraphthat cultural studies CulturalStudiesat theUniversity ofBirming-
"cannot be just anything."Tony Bennett ham, England, to revive their collective
insists,in the firstsubstantive contribution,approach amid the currentrenaissanceof
that what the contributorsshare is "a social scientificculturalwork of a very
commitment to examing culturalpractices different sort. The center,also sometimes
fromthepointofviewoftheirintrication [sic] affectionatelyknownto its partisansas the
with,andwithin,relations ofpower"(p. 23). "CCCS," was a powerfuland influential
Apparently, the failureto link culturewith force in neo-Marxistculturalwork in the
power is what Americanculturalstudies 1970s and early1980s. Two of theeditorsof
particularlylacks. The editorsinform us that the currentcollection, Cary Nelson and
while Americansmay say they are doing LawrenceGrossberg,last wrotea book for

This content downloaded from 201.174.75.10 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:13:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FEATURED
ESSAYS 371
thissame Routledgeseries,Marxismand the such processesas "increasingcommodifica-
Interpretationof Culture,whichwas a short tion"andthe"disintegration" ofgemeinschaft-
courseon thelifeand timesof CCCS. lich communities(p. 5). It is fromthis
We soon realize,then,thattheinitialstab theoretically producedempiricalframethat
at ecumenicism is reallynothingmorethana the principalassumptionsof "culturalstud-
feint.StuartHall, doyenof CCCS andnowat ies," accordingto CCCS, derive.Thereseem
MiltonKeynes'sOpen University, tellsus in to be fiveof these.
his contribution that"culturalstudiesis not 1. Institutionalizedsocial structuresare
one thing. . . it has neverbeen one thing." hierarchical and oppressive.Social orderis
As an empiricalobservation, thisis certainly not voluntaryor intersubjective, but "con-
true.As an indexof the attitudeof boththe strainsand oppressesthepeople" (p. 5).
centerand mostof theauthorsin thisbook,it 2. Cultureis not merelyrelatedto power
is mostcertainly false.Ratherthanpresenting but is intertwined with and in a very real
cultural studies inclusively and pluralis- sense reducedto it- "it simultaneously in-
tically-to representaccuratelythe stateof vokes symbolicand materialdomains" (p.
social scientificinvestigations into culture 4). Hence the centrality of the conceptof
today-the authors see it instead as the "articulation,"which "providesa way of
legacy,theverynearlyexclusiveproperty, of describingthe continualsevering,realign-
theCCCS. ment,andrecombination ofdiscourses,social
The editorstell us thattheculturalstudies groups,politicalinterests, and structuresof
of the Birminghamschool resultedfrom power"(p. 8).
"complex negotiationswith Marxism and 3. Whileculturalformsare ofteninvoked
semiotics"(p. 9). Ten yearsafterthedemise on behalfof established power,as impliedby
of that school, we live in a far differentthe centralconceptof "hegemony"(p. 14),
world. Renouncingthe romanticdream of culturemay also be employedas an instru-
postcapitalistsocialism,the current epoch is ment against it, hence the importanceof
tornbetweenpostmodern cynicismand the "identity"(p. 14). Even in thelattercase, it
revivalof liberaldemocraticideals. It is not is importantto note, power remains the
surprising,then,thatculturalstudiesmustnow instigator of culture,whichat everypointis
be presented, evenby theseCCCS inheritors,implicated in "struggle."
ina slightlydifferentway,as an "alchemythat 4. Action informedby cultureis less
drawsfrommanyof themajorbodiesof the- Burke'smeaning-oriented and literary
"sym-
oryofthelastseveraldecades,fromMarxism bolic action" than Bourdieu's "practice,"
andfeminism to psychoanalysis, poststructur-strategicand down-to-earth actiongearedto
alism,andpostmodernism" (p. 2). Yet thislip thenatureofthestruggle at hand.The issueis
serviceto eclecticismis deceiving.In their equalityand hierarchy,not communication
selectivequotations fromthevolume'sarticles and meaning:"Culturalpractices. . . create,
and in theirown theoretical interjections, the sustain,or suppresscontestations overinclu-
editorspresenta highlytheorized,relatively sion and exclusion"(p. 12). They "continu-
coherent imageoftheapproachtocultural stud- ously reinscribethe line betweenlegitimate
ies thattheywishto impresson theignorant and popular culture, and of what they
Americanmind.Thisis nothing otherthanthe accomplishin specificcontexts"(p. 13).
culturalMarxismof CCCS in a morecontem- 5. As a theoreticalenterprise,cultural
poraryform. studiesmustbe deeplyideological,for"the
The editors stress, quite rightly,how politicsof the analysis and the politicsof
importantit is to distance contemporaryintellectual workareinseparable"(p. 6). This
culturalworkfromanthropological accounts is merely the logical conclusion of the
of the seamless culturalweb of earlier, intertwining of cultureand power:"Struggles
simplersocieties.This is a starting pointthat overpowermustincreasingly touchbase with
is shared, of course, by virtuallyevery and work throughthe culturalpractices,
contemporary interpreteroftheculturalscene. languagesand logics of thepeople" (p. 11).
Their positionbecomes distinctivebecause Cultural studies has "a long historyof
theeditorsinsistthatwhatis different about commitment to disempoweredpopulations"
contemporary societiescan be encompassed (p. 12). The challengeis whatkindof "social
by thegestaltof "capitalism,"whichimplies difference theorycan make" (p. 12).

This content downloaded from 201.174.75.10 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:13:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372 FEATURED
ESSAYS
These theoretical tenetshave theparadoxi- timesin theofficeor factory.... similarly,
cal effectof pushing"culturalstudies"from everybody's individualhistory, his or her
the domainof meaninginto thatof social accumulation of behaviors,is recordedand
structure.Intertwined with power, aiding rated. . . . our societyworkson a highly
eitherthe dominationor liberationof op- elaboratesystemof surveying, and record-
pressedpeoples,practicalin its aims,culture ing, rankingand individuating our every-
inspiresa highlyideologicalfieldthataims day behaviors.(P. 161)
"to rearticulatehistoryin termsof specific
materialcontexts"(p. 15). In this part of Fiske's argument,then,we
Whileit wouldcertainly be a disserviceto recognize the same old problemsof agency
thisvolume'smyriadcontributors to suggest and alienation thatMarxismin any form,as
thateach of theiressays closelyfollowsthe well as postmodernism, has consistently
reductiveprogramwe have described,it faced:If social actorsare thevictimsof their
wouldbe a disserviceto theeditorsto suggest constraints, how can anyagencybe possible?
that the parts of theirvolume add up to At the same time,Fiske seeks to neutralize
somethingsubstantiallydifferentthan the thisdeterminism byclaimingtheever-present
wholetheyhave described.To be sure,as in potentialforrebellion:
any collectionof thissize, the thinking and Various formations of the people
writingare highlyuneven,rangingfromthe oppose and disruptthe organizeddisci-
clearand probinganalysesof Fiske and Hall plined individualitiesproduced by the
to the abstrusepostmodernism of Hosni. mechanismsof surveillance,examination,
Thereare also somereal gems. SimonFrith, and information whichFoucaulthas shown
JamesClifford, and Hall himselfare consis- are the technologiesof the mechanismof
tentlyfine writersand astuteobserversof power.(P. 161)
culturallife,despitethe constrictions of the
framework withinwhichtheywork. But isn't thepoint,really,thatpeople are
JohnFiske's sophisticated attemptto link neitherconfinedto the disciplinesof power
macroto microtheories ofculturethrough the norrelegatedto beingknee-jerk rebelsagainst
body,in "CulturalStudiesand theCultureof it? Beyondtheirroles,theyexistnotmerely
EverydayLife," maybe thebestessayof the as individual"agents" but also in relation-
lot. However,its ultimatefailuretells us a ships withsocial and personalothers,with
good deal aboutthe problemsof the CCCS "persons"whohave as meaningful identities,
approachas a whole. Moving beyondthe psychologically and socially,as theirown.
inertialqualitiesof Bourdieu'soriginalcon- Who, after all, when asked to identify
cept, Fiske shows thatthe "habitus"of the themselves in a generalsense,wouldreferto
"everyday"personis not simplya lowbrow themselvesmerely in terms of a school
culturalprisonof politicaland economical record,a workrecord,or a creditrating-or,
oppression,but a realm thatexists in the forthatmatter,as social agents?Actorsare
tensionbetween"creativity and constraint," createdas selves and othersbecause they
where actors constructtheir own social participatein the codes and narratives of a
identities
(p. 161). culturethatencirclespowerand reflects upon
Yet, while Fiske rightlyassertsthat"ac- it.
counts of the social and culturalsystems In his essay, StuartHall addressesthe
whichneglectthepositiveinputof peopleare concern,raisedalso by severalothersin the
not yet complete" (p. 161), the limiting volume,thatMarxismas a politicalpractice
principlesof CCCS remainin place. On one was somehowincompatible withtheabstrac-
hand, he confinesthe "social agent" to a tionof social theory.In doingso, he asserts
series of determinate structures, no matter that cultural studies itself is a "grand
how elegantlyelaboratedand revised as narrative"and thathe himselfis makingthe
Bourdieuian habitusorFoucaultiandiscourse. effortto "renarrativize" CCCS's "detours"
throughtheory(pp. 277, 283). We would
The organizationof bodily behaviorin argue, however, that it is precisely by
space andtimeformsthebasis ofthesocial elevatingculturalstudiesto the level of a
order.For the systemto work,we must grandnarrative-toa storyof tragicdegrada-
occupycertain"work stations"at certain tion and heroicrebellion-thatHall and his

This content downloaded from 201.174.75.10 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:13:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FEATURED
ESSAYS 373
colleaguesmake theirfundamental mistake, more hospitableintellectualground.In the
for theyfatallyconfusetheirown radical- years since, what mightbe called "late-
intellectualconceptionsof the social realm Durkheimian"sociologyhas inspiredwide-
withthoseof thesocial actorstheystudy. rangingstudiesof the dynamicrelationships
Indeed, the narrativesthatthe latter-day between binary collective representations,
CCCSers employ are as abstractas their pollution,and sacrality, on theone hand,and
theory.The brand of culturalstudiesthey politicaland social conflictson the other,
purveyremainsconfinedwithinthese ab- dynamicsthat typicallyinvolve explosive
stracted rather
politicalnarratives, thanengag- moments (In addition
of secularritualization.
ing the stories by which social actors to thewell-known worksof Geertz,Douglas,
themselves navigatetheirreality.The essence andTurner, see, e.g., Wagner-Pacifici[1986],
of theCCCS narrative, of course,lies in the Smith [1991], and the contributionsin
exegesisof malevolentpowerand its manip- Alexander[1988] in sociology;Hunt [1984]
ulation.Exegesis replacesinterpretation, for and Sewell [1980] in history;and Sahlins
the object of analysis is not meaningbut [1976, 1981] and Dirks[1990] in anthropolo-
objectiverealityitself.Agentsand hegemons gy.)
inhabit this objective world; selves and Weber introducedDilthey'shermeneutics
others,as real subjects,are shovedoutof the into historicaland comparativesociology,
empiricalframe.The ironyhereis thatmost developingan interpretive approachthathas
of thecontributors in thisbook see theirwork foundits way intovirtually everycontempo-
as accomplishingthe very opposite. For rarysociologicalstudythatavoids economic
them,culturalstudiesallowssociallyhyposta- reduction,on one hand, and statecentrism,
tized"others"-the worker,theminority, the on the other. From Bellah's studies of
woman-to become heroes in their own comparative civilreligionand Walzer'swork
stories. on themeaningofjusticeto Zelizer'scultural
Althoughthe editorsof CulturalStudies economichistoryand Eisenstadt'sstudiesof
purportto offera "roughmap . . . of the axial age civilizations, theWeberianempha-
majorcategoriesof current workin cultural sis on religiousethics,transcendental values,
studies,"then,we takestrong issuewiththeir and the institutionalization of charismahas
claim.Theyneither encompassnortypify the receivedmoreforceful in Amer-
articulations
rangeof perspectivesavailable for,and in, ica thanin the social science of any other
thecontemporary analysisof culture.In fact, nation,Germanyincluded.
theirbook is imperialratherthaninclusivein For evidence of our claim that these
its ambition,ignoringsome of the most non-Marxist traditionsof culturalanalysisare
significant strainsin culturalanalysisas it is ignored,one need look no further thanthe
practicedin Americatoday. indexandbibliography ofCulturalStudies.In
Most sociologistswould agree that the table 1 we lista numberof scholarswho are
threefoundational figuresof the discipline,
Marx, Weber, and Durkheim,each made Table 1. SelectedAuthorCitationsin
highlysignificant contributionsto thestudyof CulturalStudies
culture.Certainly, thetraditionsand concepts Numberof Pages,
theyestablishedhave subsequently informed Mentioned Numberof
muchempiricalworkand research.Of these Name or Discussed WorksCited
founding figures,however,onlyMarxandhis
StuartHall 74 29
schoolsarewellrepresented in thiscollection.
Karl Marx 43 2
The othertwofarepoorly.
AntonioGramsci 32 1
Yet it was Durkheimwho initiatedthe
PierreBourdieu 20 2
entirestructural,semioticapproachto secular
Louis Althusser 12 4
culture,an emphasisthat,in Americaduring 10 5
JeanBaudrillard
the late 1960s and 1970s, usheredin a new
Max Weber 11 1
kind of symbolicanthropology. This was
MaryDouglas 4 1
crystallizedby CliffordGeertz but also 1 0
EmileDurkheim
developedin significant waysby twoEnglish 1 0
CliffordGeertz
analysts,Mary Douglas and VictorTurner, VictorTurner 0 0
who foundAmericanacademiclife to be a

This content downloaded from 201.174.75.10 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:13:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 FEATURED
ESSAYS
generallyconsideredto have made a signifi- Huntand the morecontemporary studiesof
cant contribution to culturalstudies.Beside such sociologists as Wagner-Pacifici,
themwe give firstthe numberof pages on Zerubavel,Alexander,andSeidman,one sees
which,accordingto theindex,theirworkis notonlythedistancing fromMarxistlanguage
discussedor citedand,second,thenumberof but also a much strongeremphasison the
theirworksthatare citedin thebibliography. relative autonomyof cultural action and
Withrespectto thebook's accountability to meaningsystems,emphasesthatdistinguish
the breadth of the traditionsinformingthis developingbody of work much more
contemporary culturalstudies,these figures strongly fromthe Britishand Frenchinflu-
speak forthemselves.Unless the combined ence that CulturalStudies presents.From
importanceof Durkheim and Weber is withinthis latter group of authors,too,
equivalent to thatofLouis Althusser, it seems concertedeffortsat developingnew general
clearthatCulturalStudiesaffords onlya very theoriesaboutculturehave been made (e.g.,
partialredactionof theperspectives available Rambo and Chan [1990], Kane [1991],
to culturalanalyststoday. Sewell [1992], Swidler [1986], Alexander
Clearly,any surveywill drawupon some [1989, 1991]).
strands ofthinking morethanothers.Selectiv- It seemsto us, indeed,thatitis here,in the
ityis oftennecessaryforcreativeintellectual conflictsand cross-currents of thisAmerican
endeavor.Yet the editorspresentCultural field,thatnew modelsof culturalstudiesare
Studiesas an effort that"seeksto identify the emerging.Insofaras thisis trueof themore
dimensionsof culturalstudiesand its varied social-structural approaches,it indicatesa
effects,to discussculturalstudiesin relation morecreative,synthetic, and objectiveexten-
to its intellectualhistory,its varyingdefini- sion and revisionof theMarxistcurrents that
tions,itscurrent affiliations
and affinities and havedominated culturalstudiesin Britainand
diverse objects of study,and its possible France. However, the growing body of
futures"(p. 1). This statement cannothold. contemporary workthathas emergedfromthe
By ignoringsome of the major strandsof Weber, Durkheim,and Parsons traditions,
thinking on culturalissues, bothclassic and and thatmarksits originsin the writings of
contemporary, CulturalStudiesmustfail in Bellah, Geertz, Douglas, and Turner,in-
itsprofessedgoal. It thusperforms a massive volves a muchmoreradicalalternative. This
disservice,notonlyto itsown aimsbutto the school of Americanculturalstudiesengages
fieldof studyit addresses. social actorsand theirsubjectiveperceptions,
In fact, it may well be the neo-Marxist ratherthantreating themas objects,as most
strandsof Britishand Frenchculturalstudies of theauthorsin CulturalStudiesseemto do.
thatmarkthe insularfieldsof contemporaryThis emphasison subjectivity allows us to
activity.Social structure is hardlyan un- look beyondthe materialunderstanding of
known point of referencefor American "society"to therealmof meaning.Onlythen
students of culture,as thelargeand impres- can we begin to understandthe imagined
sive body of workby such sociologistsas communities by whichthesocial, ratherthan
DiMaggio,Griswold,Wuthnow,and Lamont the merelysocietal, is sustained.By the
demonstrates. States,markets, organizations, social we mean the representational dimen-
and stratification systems are continuous sionof institutions and societies,whichmust
referentsin thestudiesand thetheorizing that be examinednot as isolated physicaland
these sociologistsconduct.What separates materialstructures but as elementsof social
themfromtheircontinental counterparts is the texts,patternsthatarepartoflargercodes and
absencenotonlyof Marxistconceptsbutalso narrative frames.The societalis an infinitely
thegrandnarratives that,whenemployedin variedsignified,subjectto continuousfrag-
social science, make for such tendentious mentation.The social is a signifierthat
ideology.The vitalityof Americancultural unifiesand organizesthesefragmenting parts
studiescan be demonstrated, moreover, in the into genres, myth, and literature,with
veryfactthatsuchworkis fiercely contested religiousimplications.
by those working in the Durkheimian, The Centre for Contemporary Cultural
Weberian,and Parsoniantraditions we cited Studiesbuilta brilliant reputation in the1970s
above. In the historicalworks of such and early 1980s by demystifying the seem-
scholarsas Zelizer, Greenfeld,Sewell, and inglyfree-floating objectsof culture,demon-

This content downloaded from 201.174.75.10 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:13:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FEATURED
ESSAYS 375
stratingthat everything from fashion and References
foodsto sports,politics,and filmsweretools Alexander, Jeffrey.1989. Structureand Meaning:
of capitalistoppression.Twentyyears lat- RelinkingClassical Sociology.New York: Columbia
er-in a worldthatis celebrating thedownfall University Press.
of communism, not the declineof capitalist . 1991. "Citizen and Enemy as Symbolic
democracies-it is, perhaps,the resilience Classification: On the PolarizingDiscourse of Civil
Society." Pp. 289-308 in CultivatingDifferences:
and autonomy of symbolsand idealsvis-a-vis SymbolicBoundariesand the Makingof Inequality.
power,nottheirvulnerability, thatshouldbe Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
theobjectof study. Alexander, Jeffrey,
ed. 1988.Durkheimian Sociology:Cul-
turalStudies.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cultureneed not be reducedto powerin
Dirks,Nicholas.1990. TheHollowCrown:Ethnohistory
orderto be powerful.The questionpropelling ofan IndianKingdom.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
contemporary culturalstudiesshouldnot be sityPress.
how to demystify cultureby showingthatit Hunt,Lynn. 1984. Politics,Cultureand Class in the
"really"represents something else, butrather FrenchRevolution.Berkeley:University of California
Press.
how culture allows contemporaryactors Kane, Anne. 1991. "CulturalAnalysis in Historical
continuallyto remystify theirsocial worlds. Sociology:The Analyticand ConcreteFormsof the
We muststudyhow, despitethe continuing Autonomyof Culture."SociologicalTheory9:53-69.
disappointments and degradationsof the Rambo,Eric and Elaine, Chan. 1990. "Text, Structure
modemworld,personsmanageto maintain andActionin CulturalSociology."Theoryand Society
19:635-48.
theirbeliefsin transcendentvaluesand "true" Sahlins,Marshall.1976. Cultureand PracticalReason.
solidarity,how they still fear evil and Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.
perseverein theirpursuitof the good, and 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical
_

howtheyengagein ritualrenewalratherthan Realities: Structurein the Early History of the

SandwichIslandsKingdom.AnnArbor:University of
merely strategicbehavior. Only if these MichiganPress.
processesare fullyfaced can theybe fully Sewell,William.1980. Workand Revolutionin France.
understood. And onlythenwill social scien- Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
tistsbe able to supplythekindof "demysti- . 1992. "A Theoryof Structure: Duality,Agency
fying"reflexivity-regarding notjust estab- and Transformation." AmericanJournalof Sociology
91:1-29.
lishedpowerbut also intellectual and social Smith,Philip. 1991. "Codes and Conflict:Towardsa
narrativesof all kinds-thatit remainsour Theory of War as Ritual." Theory and Society
vocationto provide.This task requiresan 20:103-38.
orientationthat the authors of Cultural Swidler,Ann. 1986. "Culturein Action:Symbolsand
Strategies."American SociologicalReview51:273-86.
Studiesrarelyengage: an emphasison the Wagner-Pacifici, Robin. 1986. TheMoro MoralityPlay:
meaningin the mindsand heartsof those Terrorism as Social Drama. Chicago: University of
personswho makeup thesocial world. ChicagoPress.

This content downloaded from 201.174.75.10 on Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:13:44 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions