Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://the.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Thesis Eleven can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://the.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DURKHEIMIAN CULTURAL
SOCIOLOGY AND CULTURAL
STUDIES
Kenneth Thompson
INTRODUCTION
It is not without significance that it was on the eve of the collapse of
the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe that Jeffrey Alexander published
the edited volume, Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies (Alexander,
1988). One of the central themes of that book was the political relevance of
Durkheim’s later ‘religious sociology’ for an understanding of fundamental
political processes, such as how political upheavals can be viewed as
attempts to revive or renew the sacredness of the nation over against the
profanations of the state (Alexander, 1988: 12). (Max Weber made the point
Thesis Eleven, Number 79, November 2004: 16–24
SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications and Thesis Eleven Pty Ltd
DOI: 10.1177/0725513604046952
CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY
In the heyday of sociology’s expansion during the two decades after
the Second World War, there was little sign of a return to Durkheim’s idea
that ‘essentially social life is made up of representations’ (Durkheim, 1951:
312) and that these collective representations included all ‘the ways in which
the group conceives of itself in relation to objects which affect it’ (Durkheim,
1938: xlix). At the most fundamental level, what Durkheim called the ‘collec-
tive conscience’ (or ‘consciousness’), these collective representations
expressed society’s moral values. In recent years, there has been a decided
return to ethical and moral concerns in sociology (Alexander, 2000). This
was not the case in the post-war years, when it was believed that morality
should not be allowed to feature directly in social science. As Alexander
pointed out, that position was possible to hold because the moral seemed
imminent in the progressively unfolding historical progress that was called
modernization, which often included the welfare state as part of its unfold-
ing. The first stirrings against this optimism occurred in the radical student
movement of the 1960s, which raised questions about the adequacy and
reality of this progress. In the 1970s there was a further reaction, this time
from the economic and political Right, which took the ‘discourse of liberty’
in a different direction, portraying the welfare state in terms of excessive col-
lectivism and a brake on individual freedom and enterprise. Sociology was
accused of being inherently biased in favour of collectivism. It particularly
provoked the ire of the New Right politicians, such as the British Prime
Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who once went so far as to assert that there is
no such thing as society – only individuals and families.
Some sociologists responded by developing new ‘realisms’, in certain
cases leaving academic sociology for more ‘useful’ and approved areas such
as business studies and management consultancy. Others reacted in a ‘world
weary’ way by turning to nihilistic theories of power and violence, or theories
of postmodernity that pictured the social as a hall of mirrors, where there
were only images, playfulness and relativism. Those who remained com-
mitted to the moral project of creating an ethical society, but one not based
on an imminent unfolding process of modernization, have sought to ground
their claims for a better life in less universal, but more culturally delimited
and specific historical domains. This is the approach of the so-called ‘com-
munitarians’ (e.g. Richard Rorty, Michael Walzer and Charles Taylor). Rather
than seeking to generalize about universal moral truths and values, they have
sought to infuse the micro-spaces of delimited institutional domains, of
concrete interactions, and of particular religious, civilizational, and national
cultures, with an ethical light. Emphasizing the historical boundedness and
partiality of the lifeworlds of actually existing empirical societies, these
thinkers have pointed less to ‘justice’ in the totalizing sense than to the
importance of pluralism, tolerance and simple human recognition
(Alexander, 2000: 274).
The communitarians tend to suggest that societies are divided into
different spheres, each with its own moral criteria as to how its particular
kind of goods should be distributed – economic, political, familial,
communal. In other words, there are different spheres of justice, and one
should not try to impose one set of criteria on the others (Walzer, 1987, 1988).
French sociologists Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thevenot have a different
emphasis, suggesting that there are frequent efforts by groups to widen
support for their case by appealing to values in other spheres, e.g. workers
appeal to political values of citizenship and equality to argue against
narrower economic standards of efficiency (Boltanski and Thevenot, 1991).
Alexander believes that social movements that aim to gain widespread
attention and support tend to move beyond the boundaries of their particu-
lar sphere and appeal to values and symbols that are part of an idealized
version of their society. He calls this the idealized ‘civil society’. It entails dis-
courses and symbols that are structured in sets of binary oppositions, such
as between good and evil, us and them, democratic and counter-democratic.
CULTURAL STUDIES
Cultural studies is an interdisciplinary field that encompasses Humani-
ties disciplines (especially literary, film and television studies) as well as
sociological studies of subcultures and the mass media. Debates about the
public sphere and the mass media have figured prominently in cultural
studies. The debate often polarizes between those who follow Habermas in
believing that the 20th century development of consumer culture and com-
modified entertainment has produced a ‘pseudo’ public sphere (Habermas,
1989), and those who take a more optimistic view and even talk of popular
culture as constituting an ‘oppositional’ public sphere, in which ordinary
people can actively participate either directly as in talk show audiences, or
as active consumers who can impose their own interpretations and values
on media content (Carpignano et al., 1990; de Certeau, 1984; Fiske, 1987;
Masciarotte, 1991).
Studies of talk shows in America and other countries provide some
interesting data on variations in the content and performance of cultural
codes between civil societies in different liberal democracies. We can see the
implications of this if we focus on just two of the polarities picked out by
Alexander and Smith: individual versus collectivity/group, and independence
versus dependence. The application of performance theory in a comparison
of American and German talk shows illustrates the different emphases given
to these values in the two societies (Krause and Goering, 1995). (In this
dramaturgical approach, performance is viewed in terms of Kenneth Burke’s
five key terms of dramatism: Act – actor roles, Scene, Agent, Agency, and
Purpose; Burke, 1969.) The differences between American and German talk
shows in these respects can be summarized as follows:
CONCLUSION
A conclusion to be drawn from studies of talk shows in different
societies is that, rather than exhibiting universal characteristics of liberal-
democratic civil society, they reproduce the particularities of national differ-
ences and guard cultural boundaries. The strength of Jeffrey Alexander’s
contribution to cultural sociology has been to apply Durkheimian concepts
and insights to the study of problems of civil society in liberal-democratic
states. In doing so, he has drawn out some of the cultural particularities of
American discourses. It would be interesting to see this contribution further
strengthened by taking in some of the findings from cultural studies,
especially in the area of popular culture, and from cross-cultural studies.
References
Alexander, J. C. (ed.) (1988) Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, J. C. (2000) ‘Theorising the Good Society: Hermeneutics, Normative and
Empirical Discourses’, The Canadian Journal of Sociology 25(3): 271–309.
Boltanski, L. and Thevenot, L. (1991) De le justification: les economies de la grandeur.
Paris: Gallimard.
Burke, K. (1969) A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Carpignano, P., Anderson, R., Aronowitz, S. and Difazio, W. (1990) ‘Chatter in the
Age of Electronic Reproduction: Talk Television and the “Public Mind” ’ , Social
Text 15(6): 35–55.
De Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Durkheim, E. (1938) The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1951) Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. London: Methuen.