Brian Steensland
Indiana University
* An expanded version of this talk is
forthcoming in Sociological Forum

“Is cultural sociology doomed?” (Robert
Wuthnow, Culture newsletter, 1997)

“Is cultural sociology doomed?” (Robert
Wuthnow, Culture newsletter, 1997)

Cultural sociology…
…luxury item among departmental hiring priorities
…anti-positivist epistemology
…limited promise for external funding
…irrelevant to pressing concerns of the day

Wuthnow closed by saying “it may be
increasingly important for cultural
sociology to blend with other
specialties, rather than presenting
itself as a distinctive subfield”




Cultural sociology has thrived in the past decade.
But… I would argue Wuthnow’s concerns still apply
today.
Arguments--not assumptions--that culture matters
need to be made more strongly in studies of
politics.
This is especially true in one of my research
areas—the state and social policy—which is almost
entirely non-cultural in analytic orientation.
Culture and Politics: Three modes of
incorporation
Culture and Politics: Three modes of
incorporation

Mode #1: Add culture as an explanatory factor (or
mechanism) for established political outcomes in
political sociology and political science (e.g., voting,
state formation, legislative success, legal change).
X
Culture
Y
Culture and Politics: Three modes of
incorporation

Mode #2: Reorient research toward cultural
processes/outcomes (e.g., identity, discourse,
boundaries, symbolic structure).
X
Culture
Culture and Politics: Three modes of
incorporation

Mode #3: Show the cultural constitution of existing
(non-cultural) perspectives. (This could be considered
the Sewellian project in studies of politics).
Culture
X
Y
Culture and Politics: Three modes of
incorporation
Mode #1: Add culture to the existing mix
 Mode #2: Reorient research toward cultural
processes/outcomes
 Mode #3: Show the cultural constitution of
existing (non-cultural) perspectives
  Most recent studies of culture and politics
follow Mode #2

Culture and Politics: Three modes of
incorporation
Mode #1: Add culture to the existing mix
 Mode #2: Reorient research toward cultural
processes/outcomes
 Mode #3: Show the cultural constitution of
existing (non-cultural) perspectives
  I would argue that cultural sociologists need
to devote more attention to Mode #1 and Mode
#3

Modes #1 and #3
(1) This agenda produces research that may
convince culture skeptics. We currently risk
preaching only to the choir.
(2) This work provides the warrant for Mode #2
I offer a few examples from my own work,
which is oriented toward explaining a
mainstream outcome: policy success/failure.
Argument #1

Policy paradigms orient decision making
among experts (beyond state capacity,
professional autonomy, policy feedbacks, and
other established factors in the literature)
Argument #2

Policy meanings shape legislative preferences
among the general public (beyond “simple”
economic self-interest, etc.)
Argument #3

Cultural distinctions constitute interest definition
among key policymakers and collective identity
among the poor (in contrast to interests and
identity being immutable or self-evident)
Recap, with Modes
Policy paradigms orient decision making
among experts (Mode #1)
 Policy meanings shape legislative preferences
among the general public (Mode #1)
 Cultural distinctions constitute interest definition
among key policymakers and collective identity
among the poor (Mode #3)

Challenges
(1) Knowing the internal logic of non-cultural
perspectives
 Modes #1 and #3 may fail to connect the
dots to political outcomes
Challenges
(1) Knowing the internal logic of non-cultural
perspectives
 Modes #1 and #3 may fail to connect the
dots to political outcomes
(2) Successful innovations in cultural analysis
becoming disconnected from originating
explanatory impulses
 Mode #1 evolves into Mode #2
Conclusion

“Is cultural sociology doomed relevant?”