Culture, Production of: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century

Jennifer C Lena, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

The production-of-culture perspective focuses on the ways in which the symbolic elements of culture are shaped by the
systems in which they are created, distributed, evaluated, taught, and preserved. The perspective has flourished in the last
40 years, and scholars now study such diverse phenomena as the impact of market and industry structures on qualities of
artistic objects and experiences; the characteristic features of careers, contracts, and status orders; classification and classifi-
cation systems; the fabrication of authenticity; and fan cultures, taste, and collective memory.

In Richard A. Peterson’s article in this encyclopedia (Culture,
Production of), he noted that the production-of-culture
perspective focuses on the ways in which the symbolic
elements of culture are shaped by the “systems in which they
are created, distributed, evaluated, taught, and preserved.” In
the 13 years since his article was first published, the fulcrum of
activity has shifted, meriting a review of contemporary issues in
the production of culture.
Briefly, the production-of-culture perspective can be traced
back to Harrison White and Cynthia White’s (1965) study of
the emergence of impressionist art in nineteenth-century
France. They argued that this new style emerged as a function
of aspects of its context and method of production, of tech-
nology and training, and of features of ideology and critical
discourse. This perspective has flourished since the 1970s, and
scholars in multiple disciplines now use the approach estab-
lished in this and other early works. Evidence of the conse-
cration of this perspective can be found in the publication of
three textbooks and two anthologies with The Production of
Culture included in their titles (Crane, 1992; Ryan and
Wentworth, 1998; du Gay, 1997; Power and Scott, 2004),
and the dedication of full chapters in texts in the sociology of
art (Zolberg, 1990), and in the sociology of culture (Hall and
Neitz, 1993). A special issue assessing the scholarly contribu-
tions of Richard A. Peterson offered insight into the application
of the approach to science, theory, art and literature, organi-
zations, and consumption (Ryan and Hughes, 2000). An
Annual Review of Sociology article appeared in 2004 (Peterson
and Anand, 2004), a review essay in Poetics the following
year (Janssen and Peterson, 2005), and a review issue on
production perspectives solely within music (Dowd, 2004b). A
year later, there was a special issue of the Journal of Management
Studies (Jones et al., 2005).
As Peterson noted in 2001, the production perspective
emerged in the 1970s largely in response to perceived weak-
nesses in the notion of a strict homology between culture and
social structure. Rather than proposing that scholars examine
the relationship of symbolic elements to social structures at
(only) a macrosocial level, production-of-culture scholars
focused on mesolevel structures instead – a transition of
perspective broadly associated with the rise of postwar Amer-
ican approaches to sociological research and theory. This
mesolevel focus is found in its most prescriptive form in
Peterson’s (1990) analysis of why rock music became a domi-
nant form of popular music, and why it emerged in 1955. He
attributed rock’s rise to six production factors: law and regu-
lation, industrial structure, technology, organizational struc-
ture, occupational careers, and the consumer market. He
argued that a focus on these production factors (with minor
adaptations) would allow for similar analyses of other
commercial culture industries.
Yet, few studies exist with the ambition of describing
a whole production system. The most notable exceptions are
the works of Pierre Bourdieu that document the emergence
and operation of fields (and fields of fields) of cultural
production (Bourdieu, 1993, 1996). As early as 1983, van
Rees noted the sympathies between Bourdieu’s field theory
and the (then) new production-of-culture approach,
describing both as ‘institutional analyses.’ Among American
scholars, the group of works that explore field-level
phenomena include Peterson’s study of rock (1990), Fergu-
son’s study of gastronomy in France (2004), Lena’s study of
popular music in America (2012), Baumann’s study of
American art film (2007), and Gary Allen Fine’s study of the
production of self-taught art (2004). Most scholars focus on
one aspect of the production system, the relationship between
producers and consumers, or facets of work that impact the
culture that is produced. In the next section, I review a few of
these specific domains of research.
Dimensions of Cultural Production
To date, most studies in the production perspective have
focused on particular issues: the impact of market and industry
structures; the characteristic features of careers, contracts, and
status orders; classification and classification systems; the
fabrication of authenticity; and fan cultures, taste, and collec-
tive memory.
Market and Industry Structures
Over the past four decades, production-of-culture scholars have
produced important evidence on the role of industry, organi-
zational structure, and markets in the creation of cultural
goods. This trend can be traced back to key works on the

608 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10417-9
 Culture, Production of: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century
impacts of social structures on artistic work, including Becker’s
important Art Worlds (1982) and White and White’s (1965)
study of Impressionists.
For most of the twentieth century, the structure of culture
industries (film, music, books, magazines, television) was an
oligopoly controlled by large firms with diversified holdings
across multiple markets (Hirsch, 1972; Dowd, 2004; Lena,
2006). Most scholars concluded that the culture produced
under these oligopolistic conditions was dull and standardized.
Scholars disagree on the market and industry conditions
that give rise to diverse music. Some argue that the decentral-
ization of production onto subsidiary firms/organizational
units can attenuate the negative effects of oligopolistic markets
on musical diversity (Dowd, 2004). Others argue that new or
smaller firms produce varied and dissimilar products (Peterson
and Berger, 1975; Lopes, 1992).
Careers, Contracts, and Status Orders
Production-of-culture scholars often examine the ways in
which careers and contracts produce status orders that influ-
ence the character and popularity of different symbolic
elements. The culture industries typically employ an adminis-
trative model in which professional administrators are located
in the managerial subsystem, and ‘creatives’ are located in the
technical subsystems. Our work demonstrates that the struc-
tural organization of work weakly determines the sorts of
products that can be produced.
The typical division of labor in such systems delegates
budgetary decisions to administrative ‘suits,’ and responsi-
bility for stimulating creativity and diversity (in the face of
market uncertainty) to creatives. Since the mid-twentieth
century, creative workers in such industries have enjoyed less
employment security, and are likely to work under part-time
or short-term contracts. As entrepreneurial or contingent
labor (Neff et al., 2005), creative workers’ reputations do not
rest on organizational affiliation or reference to an objective
rank of positions. Instead, careers advance iteratively through
projects, and workers form career portfolios that ideally reflect
variety, the ability to adapt, and high levels of social and
economic capital (Faulkner and Anderson, 1987; Menger,
1999). Studies exist that chart careers among actors (Lincoln
and Allen, 2004; Rossman et al., 2010; Uzzi and Spiro,
2005), cooks and chefs (Fine, 1992), painters and artists
(Fine, 2004; Lang and Lang, 1988), authors (Janssen, 1998;
Verboord, 2003; Craig and Dubois, 2010), and celebrities
(Gamson, 1994).
The assessment of track records and career stages joins the
characteristics known to mediate between financial rewards
and peer esteem in art worlds (see Dowd et al., 2005, on
gender; Dowd and Blyler, 2002, on race). Social capital and
social status are keyed to generating opportunities to compete
for contracts. While Becker (1982) argued that the artistic
prestige of all artists is degraded by nonartistic work, including
building social networks and managing finances, detailed,
empirical analyses of artistic labor have revealed that high-
status professionals often openly engage in these activities to
no ill effect (Janssen, 1998; Craig and Dubois, 2010), and
indeed, must become expert in these nonartistic activities in
order to fuel the possibility of future contracts.
609
Status positions are allocated based on the evaluation of
‘track records’ (Pinheiro and Dowd, 2009: 491) and interper-
sonal ties (Anheier et al., 1995; Giuffre, 2001; Crossley, 2009).
The resulting income distribution is rather more skewed than
in other professions, and individual incomes vary more
dramatically over the career than in most professions (Menger,
1999: 553). This distribution of rewards holds when the
outcome measure is not income, but sales (Dowd, 2004; Lena,
2006), productivity or publication (Anheier et al., 1995; Craig
and Dubois, 2010), critical success (Giuffre, 2001; Allen and
Lincoln, 2004), or awards (Craig and Dubois, 2010). These
‘hot’ jobs in ‘cool’ industries are culturally desirable, but bring
with them the paradox of lowered expectations of economic
stability (Neff et al., 2005: 331).
There is little consensus on how the structure of career
trajectories, contract types, and status orders impacts the work
that results. Some maintain that demand uncertainty is so great
that even markets with small numbers of elites who hoard
contracts (like most contemporary culture industries) still
experience stochastic shocks, such that ‘all hits are flukes’
(Bielby and Bielby, 1994). At least one experimental study has
demonstrated that while exceptional quality guarantees at least
moderate success and exceptional badness forecloses it, every
other outcome is unpredictable (Salganik et al., 2006).
Classification
Interest in the prestige of cultural objects stretches back to and
earlier than the start of the production-of-culture perspective.
Scholars have taken a particular interest in prestige as a case of
the larger class of classificatory behaviors, some of which treat
symbolic elements of culture. The broadest of these, and
arguably the first one to be studied by production-of-culture
scholars, is the distinction between popular culture and high
art, a fixture of American society since the middle of the
twentieth century. The differentiation of high and low culture
was driven by the class interests of rising status groups (Crane,
1992), along with the emergence of the trustee-funded,
nonprofit organization (DiMaggio, 1982).
The subsequent puzzle for scholars of ‘aesthetic mobility’ or
‘aestheticization’ was to understand the mechanisms that
allowed various forms of vernacular culture to be classified
among the arts over the twentieth century. These include jazz
(Lopes, 2002; Peterson, 2005), film (Baumann, 2001), cuisine
(Ferguson, 2004; Johnston and Baumann, 2007), and ‘naïve’
painting (Fine, 2004). Aesthetic mobility is promoted by
cultural capitalists, advantaged individuals who possess varied
forms of capital that give them the power to redefine artistic
classification systems and situate their tastes in privileged
positions (Bourdieu, 1987, 1996). When structural trans-
formations threaten the exclusivity of elite tastes, they simply
use their familiarity with, and training in, artistic classification
systems to appropriate new works into those systems,
a phenomenon discovered in a range of empirical studies
(DiMaggio, 1987; Lizardo and Skiles, 2012).
Production-of-culture scholars also address how categori-
zation within industries impacts product sales and critical
approval. Genre and market categories facilitate cooperation
and interaction between producers and consumers because
they represent sets of shared conventions, and thus constrain
610 Culture, Production of: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century
producers by sanctioning deviations from these sets (Bielby
and Bielby, 1994; Negus, 1999; Lena, 2012). Mixing or trans-
gressing boundaries can inhibit success while ‘categorical
purity’ generally enhances success (Hsu, 2006a; Zuckerman
and Kim, 2003). Producers who are situated in multiple cate-
gories confuse audiences, and this lowers the appeal of their
products (Hsu, 2006b); they are also seen as less able to create
good products (Hannan, 2010; Negro et al., 2010). These
results are mediated by aspects of organizational identity
(Smith, 2011), audience characteristics (Pontikes, 2012), and
features of the classification system (Ruef and Patterson, 2009).
In particular, if boundaries within the system are in flux, or are
weak, boundary crossing may not incur penalties and may
result instead in valorization as innovation (DiMaggio, 1987;
Rao et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 2012).
A core concern in studies of classification is their link to
status; after all, “struggles over definition (or classification)
have boundaries at stake . and, therefore, hierarchies”
(Bourdieu, 1996: 159). In addition to the studies that focus on
boundary drawing by large-status groups, production-
of-culture scholars also focus on field-level or disciplinary
boundaries. For example, Anand (2000) examines the
differences between central-normative fields where
professionals wield the power to attribute legitimacy and
authenticity, and peripheral-competitive fields where
audiences ‘vote with their dollars.’
More recent studies of ranking and classification have
examined various indexes, lists, and performance algorithms as
cultural objects that impact the behavior of those ranked
according to them. Rank ordering and other forms of perfor-
mance evaluation have a tendency to cause individuals to alter
their behavior in response to being evaluated, observed, or
measured. Research on the insurance industry demonstrates
that buying insurance increases our risk-avoidance behavior,
rendering our insurance less valuable (Heimer, 1985). The
general observation has been made that knowledge of theories
of economic behavior shapes how individuals behave
economically, a characteristic Callon (1998) calls ‘perform-
ativity’ (see also Latour, 1987). Anand and Peterson (2000)
argue that ‘market information regimes’ like stock prices and
bestseller lists define what counts as ‘information’ about the
market, and this impacts what strategies participants use. For
example, using market information contained in Billboard
magazine charts, Anand and Peterson show that music industry
participants change their definitions of success and may invest
resources in different trends, producing large changes in the
culture that is produced. Measures of law school quality are
also highly reactive measures, and cause schools to make
administrative and curricular decisions in order to increase
their rank (Espeland and Sauder, 2007).
Authenticity
Production-of-culture scholars have sought to understand the
circumstances under which cultural producers and their works
are seen as ‘authentic.’ Most define authenticity as “the ability
of a place, experience, person, or object to conform to an
idealized representation of reality, that is, to a set of expecta-
tions regarding how something ought to look sound,
feel, smell” (Grazian, 2003: 10). Authenticity is a social
construction, a set of shared beliefs, and not an objective
quality inherent in things, people, places, or experiences.
Definitions of authenticity are shared within groups, but are
not universalizable.
Based on this approach, authenticity can be viewed as
a quality that is produced by teams of coordinated actors
within a field. Scholars using the production-of-culture
approach focus their attention toward the teams of musicians,
managers, agents, producers, and other artistic support staff
whose work is to ‘fabricate authenticity’ (Peterson, 1997;
Hughes, 2000; Fine, 2004; Sherman, 2007). To understand
how authenticity is fabricated, we often need to find the ‘creator
of the creator’ (Bourdieu, 1996: 168). Attributions of authen-
ticity frequently rest on aspects of particularistic categorical
attributes of the creators including their race and gender, and
these can be as important during the evaluative process as any
of the formal features of the objects or performances they
create. In addition to categorical attributes of culture creators,
scholars have found that evaluations of authenticity rest on the
unique, handmade, or traditional character of an item (Bendix,
1997; Beverland, 2005), its historical existence (Anand and
Jones, 2005), and its geographic specificity (Johnston and
Baumann, 2007; Phillips and Kim, 2009). The production of
identity is the focus of studies of self-taught artists (Fine, 2004),
blues musicians (Grazian, 2003), country artists (Peterson,
1997), punk musicians (Lull, 1986), rap musicians (McLeod,
1999; Lena, 2013), jazz musicians (Phillips and Kim, 2009),
restaurant cooks and waiters (Lu and Fine, 1995), and
foodies (Johnston and Baumann, 2007).
Fan Cultures, Taste, and Collective Memory
Reception by the listener, reader, viewer, or purchaser has been
a long-standing concern in the study of culture. As Peterson
(2001: 3172) noted in his article in this volume, the term
‘reception’ suggests the end of a communication process, but
most sociologists conceive reception as an active process during
which consumers select, interpret, and recombine elements.
That is, they conceptualize it as a form of production. Instead of
identifying consumers who have received the ‘correct’ message,
we observe patterns in the meanings that they attach to them
(van Rees, 1987; McDonnell, 2010). Peterson (1983) is among
those who argue that this process should properly be referred to
as ‘autoproduction,’ although such work is most often identi-
fied as research on ‘identity’ or ‘taste.’
There are many studies that examine the production of
identity through cultural consumption and participation in fan
communities. The leading light is Tia DeNora, who has used
interviews and observation to examine how individuals use
music to invoke and manage emotion, relationships, decisions,
and the like; she addresses music as a ‘technology of the self’
(2000).
Recent studies of class differences in taste reveal that most
people of high status have dispensed with an exclusive prefer-
ence for the old class markers of cultural capital (the appreci-
ation of fine arts) and instead have diverse cultural preferences
that include popular arts (Peterson and Kern, 1996). This result
has been found in multiple countries including Canada, the
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain,
Austria, and Australia, and in additional analyses of the United
 Culture, Production of: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century
States population (see Peterson, 2005, for a review). These
studies document shifting tastes across a range of cultural
pursuits including music (Bennett, 2006), reading (Zavisca,
2005), art (DiMaggio and Mukhtar, 2004; Vander Stichele
and Laermans, 2006), food (Johnston and Baumann, 2007),
and television (Lizardo and Skiles, 2009).
While documenting the rise in omnivorous tastes among
elites, scholars emphasized that group boundaries are main-
tained based not “on what is consumed, but on the way in which
items of consumption are understood” (Peterson and Kern, 1996:
904). It is possible that elites consuming ‘middlebrow’ and
‘lowbrow’ culture are making discriminatory judgments at the
subgenre level that are missed in surveys. Johnston and
Baumann’s (2007) work suggests this may be the case among
gastronomic omnivores; ‘foodies’ will eat the same foods, in
the same restaurants, as others, but discriminate on the basis of
their perceived authenticity. This suggests future research will
seek to blend these survey results with more qualitative
research and may discard genre in favor of more specific
measures of consumption. Some research of this kind is
taking place (Sonnett, unpublished manuscript), informed by
Bourdieu’s approach in Distinction (1987; see also Fligstein
and McAdam, 2012). The obstacle to research in this area is
the resource intensity of consumption at the intragenre level.
Production-of-culture scholars have also investigated the
production of reputation (Van Rees and Vermunt, 1996;
Barker-Nunn and Fine, 1998) and collective memory. As
shared, established images of social actors, reputations emerge
from a social process by which information and events are
filtered through a selective lens (Lang and Lang, 1988). Certain
details acquire relevance and gravity, while others are dis-
regarded or censored out of the stories that concatenate into
reputations. Thus, collective memories are reinterpretations of
past people and events that harmonize them with current
political needs and cultural beliefs (Halbwachs, 1992; Lang
and Lang, 1988; Sewell, 1996). Media-studies scholars have
offered case studies of celebrity (Gamson, 1994), media frames
(Tuchman, 1978), and talk shows on television (Grindstaff,
2002) to illuminate the dynamics of mass reputations.
Prospects
Thirteen years ago, Richard Peterson focused here on the
prospect of studying production factors given the globalization
of production and the high rate of technological development
as well as changes in censorship law and intellectual property
rights. While scholars outside the United States have contrib-
uted meaningfully to understanding global production and
distribution systems, and communications scholars have
directed attention toward the impact of regulatory systems
in the digital age on content, sociologists have turned
their attention elsewhere. In particular, production-of-culture
scholars and their works have been producing thousands of
studies of omnivorousness, and the growing body of works that
focus on product classification within industries.
While the revolution in digital technology did not spark
a bumper crop of research on online distribution systems, it did
encourage scholars to acquire a set of tools to examine ‘big
data.’ We have an extraordinary capacity to evaluate large
611
amounts of information, but only some of it is unencumbered
by legal restrictions on access and use. This means we will likely
see research on music and literature replaced by studies of the
transformation of social media like Twitter, and scientific
collaboration and citation, because data on the latter have thus
far been more tractable.
Production-of-culture scholars may also be drawn to study
new careers in new or rapidly transforming industries like
finance. To maximize their leverage on these cases, they may
benefit from collaboration with economic sociologists who
already understand a great deal about how such careers work.
Relatedly, these subspecialties could productively collaborate
to understand new performance metrics and predictive algo-
rithms that have rationalized finance and produced new
sources of market volatility. Finally, it is time for production-
of-culture scholars to dispense with older (even revised or
adapted) categories of consumers and seek to understand tastes
by inductively producing market segments from behavior,
attitudes, and attributes.
See also: Artists, Competition and Markets; Cultural Mediators
and Gatekeepers; Cultural Participation, Trends In; Cultural
Production in Networks; Markets: Artistic and Cultural.
Bibliography
Allen, M.P., Lincoln, A.E., 2004. Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of
American films. Social Forces 82, 871–894.
Anand, N., 2000. Defocalizing the organization: Richard A. Peterson’s sociology of
organizations. Poetics 28, 173–184.
Anand, N., Peterson, R.A., 2000. When market information constitutes fields: sensemaking
of markets in the commercial music industry. Organization Science 11, 270–284.
Anand, N., Jones, B.C., 2005. Fabricating Authenticity to Produce Organizational
Culture: The Case of a British Retail Chain Store. Unpublished Manuscript. London
Business School, London.
Anheier, H.K., Gerhards, J., Rono, F.P., 1995. Forms of capital and social structure in
cultural fields: examining Bourdieu’s social topography. American Journal of
Sociology 100, 859–903.
Barker-Nunn, J., Fine, G.A., 1998. The vortex of creation: literary politics and the
demise of Herman Melville’s reputation. Poetics 26, 81–98.
Baumann, S., 2001. Intellectualization and art world development. American Socio-
logical Review 66, 404–426.
Baumann, S., 2007. Hollywood Highbrow: From Entertainment to Art. Princeton,
Princeton, NJ.
Becker, H.A., 1982. Art Worlds. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Bendix, R., 1997. In: Search of Authenticity: The Formation of Folklore Studies. U of
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Bennett, A., 2006. ‘Punk’s not dead’: the continuing significance of punk rock for an
older generation of fans. Sociology 40, 219–235.
Beverland, M.B., 2005. Crafting brand authenticity: the case of luxury wines. Journal
of Management Studies 42, 1003–1029.
Bielby, W.T., Bielby, D.D., 1994. ‘All hits are flukes:’ institutionalized decision-making
and the rhetoric of network prime-time program development. American Journal of
Sociology 99, 1287–1313.
Bourdieu, P., 1987. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard
UP, Cambridge, MA.
Bourdieu, P., 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature.
Columbia UP, New York.
Bourdieu, P., 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field.
Stanford UP, Stanford.
Callon, M. (Ed.), 1998. The Laws of the Markets. Blackwell, Oxford.
Coser, L.A. (Ed.), 1978. The Production of Culture. Social Research, 45.
Craig, A., Dubois, S., 2010. Between art and money: the social space of public
readings in contemporary poetry economies and careers. Poetics 38, 441–460.
612 Culture, Production of: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century
Crane, D., 1992. The Production of Culture. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Crossley, N., 2009. The man whose web expanded: network dynamics in Man-
chester’s post/punk music scene, 1976–1980. Poetics 73, 24–49.
DeNora, T., 2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge UP, New York.
DiMaggio, P., 1987. Classification in art. American Sociological Review 52, 440–455.
DiMaggio, P., 1982. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: the creation of
an organizational base for high culture in America. Media, Culture and Society 4, 33–50.
DiMaggio, P., Mukhtar, T., 2004. Arts participation as cultural capital in the United
States, 1982–2002: signs of decline? Poetics 32, 169–194.
Dowd, T., 2004a. Concentration and diversity revisited: production logics and the U.S.
mainstream recording market, 1940–1990. Social Forces 82, 1411–1455.
Dowd, T.J., 2004b. Production perspectives in the sociology of music. Poetics 32,
235–246.
Dowd, T., Blyler, M., 2002. Charting race: the success of black performers in the
mainstream recording market, 1940 to 1990. Poetics 30, 87–110.
Dowd, T.J., Liddle, K., Blyler, M., 2005. Charting gender: the success of female acts in
the U.S. mainstream recording market, 1940–1990. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations 23, 81–123.
Espeland, W.N., Sauder, M., 2007. Rankings and reactivity: how public measures
recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113, 1–40.
Faulkner, R.R., Anderson, A.B., 1987. Short-term projects and emergent careers:
evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology 92, 879–909.
Ferguson, P., 2004. Accounting for Taste: The Triumph of French Cuisine. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Fine, G.A., 1992. The culture of production: aesthetic choices and constraints in
culinary work. American Journal of Sociology 97, 1268–1294.
Fine, G.A., 2004. Everyday Genius: Self-taught Art and the Culture of Authenticity.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Fligstein, N., McAdam, D., 2012. A Theory of Fields. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Gamson, J., 1994. Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
du Gay, P. (Ed.), 1997. Production of Culture: Cultures of Production. Sage, London.
Grindstaff, L., 2002. The Money Shot: Trash, Class and the Making of TV Talk Shows.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Giuffre, K., 2001. Mental maps: social networks and the language of critical reviews.
Sociological Inquiry 71, 381–393.
Grazian, D., 2003. Blue Chicago: The Search for Authenticity in Urban Blues Clubs.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Griswold, W., 1994. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. Pine Forge Press,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Halbwachs, M., 1992. On Collective Memory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hall, J.R., Neitz, M.J., 1993. Culture: Sociological Perspectives. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hannan, M.T., 2010. Partiality of memberships in categories and audiences. Annual
Review of Sociology 36, 159–181.
Heimer, C., 1985. Reactive Risk and Rational Action: Managing Moral Hazard in
Insurance Contracts. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Hirsch, P.M., 1972. Processing fads and fashions: an organization-set analysis of
cultural industry systems. American Journal of Sociology 77, 639–659.
Hsu, G., 2006a. Jacks of all trades and masters of none: audiences’ reactions to
spanning genres in feature film. Administrative Science Quarterly 51, 420–450.
Hsu, G., 2006b. Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the US film industry.
Industrial and Corporate Change 15, 467–496.
Hsu, G., Roberts, P.W., Swaminathan, A., 2012. Evaluative schemas and the medi-
ating role of Critics. Organization Science 23, 83–97.
Hughes, M., 2000. Country music as impression management: a mediation on
fabricating authenticity. Poetics 28, 185–206.
Janssen, S., 1998. Side-roads to success: the effect of sideline activities on the status
of writers. Poetics 25, 265–280.
Janssen, S., Peterson, Richard A., 2005. Comparative research on cultural production
and consumption. Poetics vol. 33 (5–6), 253–256.
Janssen, S., Kuipers, G., Verboord, M., 2008. Cultural globalization and arts
journalism: the international orientation of arts and culture coverage in Dutch,
French, German, and U.S. newspapers, 1955–2005. American Sociological
Review 73, 719–740.
Johnston, J., Baumann, S., 2007. Democracy versus distinction: a study of omnivo-
rousness in gourmet food writing. American Journal of Sociology 113, 165–204.
Jones, C., Anand, N., Alvarez, J.L. (Eds.), 2005. Manufactured Authenticity and Creative
Voice in Cultural Industries. Journal of Management Studies 42 (5), 893–899.
Lang, G.E., Lang, K., 1988. Recognition and renown: the survival of artistic reputation.
American Journal of Sociology 94, 79–109.
Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lena, J.C., 2006. Social context and musical content: rap music, 1979–1995. Social
Forces 85, 479–495.
Lena, J.C., 2012. Banding Together: How Communities Create Genres in Popular
Music. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Lena, J.C., 2013. Authenticity and independence in rap music and other genre commu-
nities. In: Horsfall, S., Meij, J., Probstfield, M. (Eds.), Explorations in Music Sociology:
Examining the Role of Music in Social Life. Paradigm Publishing, Boulder, CO.
Lincoln, A.E., Allen, M.P., 2004. Double jeopardy in Hollywood: age and gender in the
careers of film actors, 1926–1999. Sociological Forum 19, 611–631.
Lizardo, O., Skiles, S., 2009. Highbrow omnivorousness on the small screen?: cultural
industry systems and patterns of cultural choice in Europe. Poetics 37, 1–23.
Lizardo, O., Skiles, S., 2012. Reconceptualizing and theorizing ‘omnivorousness:’
genetic and relational mechanisms. Sociological Theory 30, 263–282.
Lopes, P.D., 1992. Innovation and diversity in the popular music industry, 1969–1990.
American Sociological Review 57, 56–71.
Lopes, P.D., 2002. The Rise of a Jazz Art World. Cambridge UP, Cambridge.
Lu, S., Fine, G.A., 1995. The presentation of ethnic authenticity: Chinese food as
a social accomplishment. Sociological Quarterly 36, 535–553.
Lull, J., 1986. Thrashing in the pit: an ethnography of San Francisco punk subculture.
In: Lindlof, T. (Ed.), Natural Audiences: Qualitative Research on Media Uses and
Effects. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
McLeod, K., 1999. Authenticity within hip-hop and other cultures threatened with
assimilation. Journal of Communication 49, 134–150.
McDonnell, T.E., 2010. Cultural objects as objects: materiality, urban space, and the
interpretation of AIDS media in Accra, Ghana. The American Journal of Sociology
115, 1800–1852.
Menger, P.M., 1999. Artistic labor markets and careers. Annual Review of Sociology
25, 541–574.
Neff, G., Wissinger, E., Zukin, S., 2005. Entrepreneurial labor among cultural
producers: ‘Cool’ jobs in ‘hot’ industries. Social Semiotics 15, 307–334.
Negro, G., Hannan, M.T., Rao, H., 2010. Categorical contrast and audience appeal:
niche width and critical success in winemaking. Industrial and Corporate Change
19, 1397–1425.
Negus, K., 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. Routledge, London.
Peterson, R.A., Kern, R.M., 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore.
American Sociological Review 61, 900–907.
Peterson, R.A., 1976. The production of culture: a prolegomenon. In: Peterson, R.A.
(Ed.), The Production of Culture. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 7–22.
Peterson, R.A., 1983. Patterns of cultural choice: prolegomenon. American Behavioral
Scientist 26, 422–438.
Peterson, R.A., 1990. Why 1955? Explaining the advent of rock music. Popular Music
9, 97–116.
Peterson, R.A., 1997. Creating Country Music: Fabricating Authenticity. Vanderbilt
University Press, Nashville, TN.
Peterson, R.A., Anand, N., 2004. The production of culture perspective. Annual Review
of Sociology 30, 311–334.
Peterson, R.A., Berger, D., 1975. Cycles in symbol production: the case of popular
music. American Sociological Review 40, 158.
Peterson, R.A., 2005. Problems in comparative research: the example of omnivo-
rousness. Poetics 33, 257–282.
Phillips, D.J., Kim, Y.-K., 2009. Why pseudonyms?: deception as identity preservation
among jazz record companies. Organization Science 20, 481–499.
Pinheiro, D.L., Dowd, T.J., 2009. All that jazz: the success of jazz musicians in three
metropolitan areas. Poetics 37, 490–506.
Pontikes, E.G., 2012. Two sides of the same coin: how ambiguous classification affects
multiple audiences’ evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly 57, 81–118.
Power, D., Scott, A.J. (Eds.), 2004. Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture.
Routledge, New York.
Rao, H., Durand, R., Monin, P., 2005. Border crossing: bricolage and the erosion of cate-
gorical boundaries in French gastronomy. American Sociological Review 70, 968–991.
Ruef, M., Patterson, K., 2009. Credit and classification: defining industry boundaries in
19th century America. Administrative Science Quarterly 54, 486–520.
Ryan, J., Hughes, M. (Eds.), 2000. The Production and Consumption of Culture:
Essays on Richard a. Peterson’s Contributions to Cultural Sociology. Special issue
Poetics. 28/2–3, 91–233.
Rossman, G., Esparza, N., Bonacich, P., 2010. I’d like to thank the academy: team
spillovers and network centrality. American Sociological Review 75, 31–51.
van Rees, K., 1983. Advances in the empirical sociology of literature and the arts.
Poetics 12, 285–310.
van Rees, K., 1987. How reviewers reach consensus on the value of literary works.
Poetics 16, 275–294.
van Rees, K., Vermunt, J., 1996. Event history analysis of authors’ reputation: effects
of critics’ attention on debutants’ careers. Poetics 23, 317–333.
 Culture, Production of: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century
Ryan, J., Wentworth, W.M., 1998. Media and Society: The Production of Culture in the
Mass Media. Prentice-Hall, New York.
Salganik, M.J., Dodds, P.S., Watts, D.J., 2006. Experimental study of inequality and
unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311, 854–856.
Sewell Jr., W.H., 1996. Political events as structural transformations: inventing
revolution at the Bastille. Theory and Society 25, 841–881.
Sherman, R., 2007. Class Acts: Service and Inequality in Luxury Hotels. University of
California Press, Los Angeles.
Smith, E.B., 2011. Identities as lenses: how organizational identity affects audiences’
evaluation of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 5,
61–94.
Sonnett, J. Indifference, ambivalence, and distinction: a configurational analysis of
musical boundaries in Mississippi, unpublished manuscript.
Tuchman, G., 1978. Making News. Free Press, New York.
613
Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., 2005. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem.
American Journal of Sociology 11, 447–504.
Vander Stichele, A., Laermans, R., 2006. Cultural participation in Flanders: testing the
cultural omnivore thesis with population data. Poetics 34, 45–64.
Verboord, M., 2003. Classification of authors by literary prestige. Poetics 31,
259–281.
White, H.C., White, C.A., 1965. Canvases and Careers. Wiley, New York.
Zavisca, J., 2005. The status of cultural omnivorism: a case study of reading in Russia.
Social Forces 84, 1233–1255.
Zolberg, V.L., 1990. Constructing a Sociology of the Arts. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Zuckerman, E.W., Kim, T.Y., 2003. The critical trade-off: identity assignment and box-
office success in the feature film industry. Industrial and Corporate Change 12,
27–67.