Organization Science
Vol. 23, No. 6, November–December 2012, pp. 1523–1545
ISSN 1047-7039 (print) — ISSN 1526-5455 (online)
http://dx/doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0701
© 2012 INFORMS
Rebels with a Cause: Formation, Contestation, and
Expansion of the De Novo Category
“Modern Architecture,” 1870–1975
Candace Jones, Massimo Maoret, Felipe G. Massa
Management and Organization Department, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467
{jonesq@bc.edu, maoret@bc.edu, fgmassa@loyno.edu}
Silviya Svejenova
Business Policy Department, ESADE Business School, Ramon Llull University,
08034 Barcelona, Spain, silviya.svejenova@esade.edu
ost category studies have focused on established categories with discrete boundaries. These studies not only beg
the question of how a de novo category arises, but also upon what institutional material actors draw to create a
de novo category. We examine the formation and theorization of the de novo category “modern architecture” between
1870 and 1975. Our study shows that the process of new category formation was driven by groups of architects with
distinct clientele associated with institutional logics of commerce, state, religion, and family. These architects enacted
different artifact codes for a building based on institutional logics associated with their specific mix of clients. “Modern
architects” fought over what logics and artifact codes should guide “modern architecture.” Modern functional architects
espoused a logic of commerce enacted through a restricted artifact code of new materials in a building, whereas modern
organic architects advocated transforming the profession’s logic enacted through a flexible artifact code of mixing new and
traditional materials in buildings. The conflict became a source of creative tension for modern architects that followed, who
integrated aspects of both logics and materials in buildings, expanding the category boundary. Plural logics and category
expansion resulted in multiple conflicting exemplars within “modern architecture” and enabled its adaptation to changing
social forces and architectural interpretations for over 70 years.
M
Key words: categories; institutional logics; theorization; modern architecture; symbols; materials;
network textual analysis; artifact codes
History: Published online in Articles in Advance October 19, 2011.
Introduction
theorization about these new features. However, when
multiple, and often conflicting, logics are at play—a condition called institutional pluralism (Kraatz and Block
2008, Greenwood et al. 2011)—contradictory assumptions, values, and criteria for legitimacy are experienced
by actors, making it difficult for them to construct, recognize, and learn a new category. A de novo category, in
contrast to a new category based on recombined features,
cannot draw on existing assumptions and legitimacy
associated with established categories. For instance, consumers and producers were able to understand the new
vehicle category “minivan” by accessing institutional
materials such as the existing “virtues of different minivan designs (car-like versus truck-like),” drawing on and
comparing established and legitimate features of “car”
and “truck” (Rosa et al. 1999, p. 73). Thus, a de novo
category presents a theoretical puzzle to organizational
scholars: From which logics do actors draw institutional
materials to construct and theorize the de novo category,
and how do they generate enough social agreement for
the de novo category to guide collective behavior?
When societal institutions undergo profound change, so
too do the categories that underpin them and stabilize
the “flux of social life” (Douglas 1986, p. 100). Categories are shaped by society’s major institutions, such as
the market, state, family, and professions. Each societal
sector has a distinct logic: a set of organizing principles
that contain the cognitive schema, normative expectations, and material practices (Friedland and Alford 1991,
Thornton and Ocasio 2008) that actors employ to enact
and assign meaning to categories. Although some scholars identify institutional change as central to category
transformation and hint at the role institutional logics
play in the process (e.g., Rao et al. 2003), as of yet,
they have not examined empirically how logics affect
the creation of new categories.
During times of institutional transformation, when
dominant social institutions and their logics are questioned and multiple logics become viable alternative
organizing principles, categories are likely to be de
novo. A de novo category is signaled by the emergence of a new vocabulary, new features in artifacts, and
1523
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1524
Categories are not simply labels that actors use to
sort social phenomena into appropriate bins but are
instead associated with actors’ status, interests, and identities (Rao et al. 2003, Powell and Colyvas 2008).
They exemplify what is socially valued through rewards
and penalties (Khaire and Wadhwani 2010, Zuckerman
1999), reveal boundaries that demarcate who and what
is included or excluded within a category (Pontikes
2010), and often spark conflict over category definition and content (Bowker and Starr 1999). Categories
are more easily constructed, recognized, and learned
when artifacts’ features are distinct from those of other
categories, and are also similar and visible within a
category (Rosch and Mervis 1975). These categories
are defined by artifact codes:1 the implicit rules about
what is selected and combined to express a category
(Ansell 1997, Atkinson 1985). For instance, films in
the Western genre have an artifact code that specifies protagonists (cowboy, rancher, sheriff), antagonists
(gunslinger, Indian, farmer), and types of conflict (over
material goods such as land, water, or money and over
ethics such as vengeance or justice). In contrast to
artifact codes, institutional logics provide actors with
category content—the assumptions and values that motivate which features are selected—and the criteria for
legitimacy for the artifact code (which features can
be selected, combined, and ascribed to a category). In
essence, logics provide the framework for reasoning
and justify why features are important and legitimate,
whereas artifact codes focus on which features and patterns of features define an artifact, allowing actors to
recognize and group artifacts into categories. By linking
logics and artifact codes, internal and external audiences
create and interpret an artifact’s meaning and value in a
social system (Chandler 2007).
This study deepens our understanding of the relations
between institutional logics and new category construction by demonstrating how logics provide the institutional materials by which actors construct, contest, and
elaborate de novo categories. In particular, we examine the construction and evolution of “modern architecture” in the context of the architectural profession from
1870 to 1975. In architecture, one of the most important
categorization systems is based on architectural styles:
“[T]he customary and characteristic system of construction and ornament prevailing in a given time and place”
(Hamlin 1891, p. 141). Styles classify buildings much
like genres categorize artworks into “sets based on perceived similarities” (DiMaggio 1987, p. 441) and product categories classify automobiles (Rosa et al. 1999,
Porac et al. 2001) and mutual funds (Lounsbury and
Rao 2004). At the end of the 19th century, the conceptual and categorical moorings by which architects understood and constructed their built environment became
unhinged. The architectural profession was experiencing
“unsettled times” (Swidler 1986) brought about by rapid
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
economic expansion, industrialization, urbanization, and
the production of new materials such as reinforced concrete and steel (Guillén 2006). Architects began creating
a new vocabulary, a “wealth of new words,” such as
“modern” and “skyscraper,” as noted by modern architect Ragnar Östberg (1934, p. 34). They also experimented with new materials, such as steel and reinforced
concrete in buildings, with which they sought to create
new forms of architecture. They used a new vocabulary and theorized materials and forms of buildings in
their programs, manifestoes, and speeches, which they
published prolifically (Conrads 1971). All of this suggests that “modern architecture” was a de novo category that did not build on taken-for-granted assumptions
and legitimacy of established categories (Schneiberg and
Clemens 2006, Colyvas and Powell 2006). These architects sought a “modern architecture” but struggled to
understand and define what it meant to be “modern.” To
this day, architects and historians agree only on two general principles that define “modern architecture”: (1) the
rejection of historical styles to signal a new building’s
function (e.g., the use of Greek columns to signal a
courthouse or Gothic arches a church) and (2) the creation of new forms, simplified and lacking ornamentation, that employ new materials (e.g., steel, concrete,
glass)—which may or may not be combined with traditional materials—and/or construction processes (e.g.,
standardization and prefabrication; see Hitchcock and
Johnson 1995, Curtis 2005, Wilson 1984).
We construct an analytic narrative of the formation and evolution of the de novo category “modern
architecture” from 1870 through 1975 based on primary and secondary historical texts, tracing its evolution from inception to decline. Our narrative is based
on structural semiotics’ analyses of (1) institutional logics and (2) artifact codes. Institutional logics are distinct
organizing principles revealed through coherent relations among binary contrasts of key vocabulary terms
(Friedland 2001). Artifact codes reveal which material
features are selected and combined to enact the new category. Material features are also central to logics because
symbols and ideals “must be made material in order to
signify” (Friedland 2001, p. 141). We link logics and
artifact codes to interpret the meaning of “modern architecture” for architects and the profession.
Our study extends category research in two ways.
First, by tracing “modern architecture” for over
100 years, we reveal the origins of a de novo category,
rather than simply illuminating its evolution and extensions. Second, by using a structural semiotic approach
to link logics and artifact codes, we assess both the
symbolic and material transformations that occur in a
de novo category. We also make three contributions to
research on institutional logics. First, we provide one
of the few studies that examines a condition of enduring pluralism (Greenwood et al. 2011), when inchoate
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
and contradictory assumptions, values, and criteria for
legitimacy compete as viable models to guide social
actors. Second, we assess both the symbolic and the
material bases of institutional logics, whereas most
scholars tend to privilege the cognitive. Third, we examine the microfoundations of institutional logics through
actors’ theorization and material practices, addressing
a neglected gap within institutional theory (Powell and
Colyvas 2008).
Established and New Categories
Despite evidence of categories’ dynamic nature (Lena
and Peterson 2008, Pontikes 2010, Ruef and Patterson
2009), research has paid little attention to their origins and evolution, focusing mainly on established categories with mature and stable classification schemata.
For instance, Hsu (2006a) analyzed the schema of film
critics but did not explore its origin or how consensus over its defining features was reached. Weber et al.
(2008) examined how advocates for grass-fed meat and
dairy products mobilized broader cultural codes (e.g.,
“organic foods”) to motivate producers’ entry into the
nascent market category, but not the process through
which the meaning of the category was established. Similarly, Ruef and Patterson (2009) identified new business
categories in Dun & Bradstreet and how they were evaluated, but not the process by which they arose.
Scholars have examined categories mostly in market
settings, such as film (Hsu 2006b, Zuckerman et al.
2003), financial markets (Zuckerman 1999), art auctions
(Khaire and Wadhwani 2010), automobiles (Rosa et al.
1999), and software (Kennedy 2008, Pontikes 2010).
In these settings, commensuration or comparability and
valuation of products within a category are paramount.
Thus, stability and predictability of products is essential
for both consumers and analysts, driving producers’ performance. For instance, Rosa et al. (1999) drew on external audiences’ responses to products in auto enthusiast
and consumer rating publications, and Pontikes (2010)
analyzed the effects of category leniency on consumers
versus venture capitalists in computer software, but neither tracked who theorized the meaning of these new categories. Furthermore, scholars focus primarily on which
features an artifact is expected to possess for category
membership (Hsu and Hannan 2005, Negro et al. 2011),
even though research on artifact categorization shows
that both function and form are nearly universal criteria across cultures by which actors categorize artifacts
(for a review, see Malt and Sloman 2007). As a result,
our understanding of categories is limited to established
categories in market settings and focuses on how audiences shape product categories and highlight features as
a basis for categorizing artifacts.
When scholars have turned their attention to category
formation processes, they have mostly highlighted how
1525
new codes arise from recombining and blending features of existing categories. For example, Rosa et al.
(1999) and Porac et al. (2001) traced the rise of the
minivan, which is a combination of a car and a van.
Khaire and Wadwani (2010) examined the rise of “modern Indian art,” which is a hybrid category that combines
features defining the categories of “modern Western art”
and “traditional Indian art.” Others have focused on how
new categories arise through modification of extant categories. Rao et al. (2003) revealed that nouvelle cuisine, as a new category, maintained essential features
of the classical cuisine code, such as chef, waiter, dish,
ingredients, and restaurant but modified their content,
i.e., the role identities of chef and waiter, the archetypal ingredients used in a dish, the rules of cooking,
and the organization of the menu. Alternatively, scholars
have shown that existing categories can be reinterpreted
through the association of an existing label to a new
code. For instance, modern and traditional Barolo and
Barbaresco winemakers contended over the features (i.e.,
material and size of their barrels for aging wine), not
over the label, associated with their wine (Negro et al.
2011). These scholars assume that category stability is
built on collective consensus about a category’s features
(e.g., Cattani et al. 2008, Negro et al. 2010).
A de novo category, however, does not yet have an
artifact code that defines it, established features that can
be combined or contended over, or exemplars to “focus
attention on specific features” (Nigam and Ocasio 2010,
p. 826). Oftentimes, analogies are used to highlight
the similarities between exemplars, helping to define,
explain, and legitimize novel ideas and practices (Gavetti
et al. 2005, Etzion and Ferraro 2010). Some scholars argue that a category needs to be theorized where
abstract principles are identified for it to diffuse (Strang
and Meyer 1993). Other scholars have focused on examining how established categories are learned through
exemplars that are labeled and grouped, revealing graded
(or lenient) rather than dichotomous (or strict) categorical boundaries (Rosch and Mervis 1975, Pontikes 2010).
Thus, although we have gained insight into how new
categories recombine, modify, or reinterpret existing features, the process through which categories are created
and theorized de novo is underexamined and not well
understood in the literature.
In this paper, we examine the construction and evolution of the de novo category “modern architecture.” The
multistage process entailed the creation of a new artifact code that combined previously unavailable materials
and symbols and that drew upon institutional logics to
guide theorization and specification of artifacts’ features,
forms, and functions. These were, in turn, learned and
grouped together into a new category by internal and
external audiences.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1526
Methods
Our methods focused on how institutional logics influenced the construction and change of the de novo category “modern architecture.” Because logics are defined
as a set of material practices and symbolic constructions
(Friedland and Alford 1991), we conducted a structural
analysis attending to texts and buildings, ensuring neither “system of meaning nor mode of practice 0 0 0 be privileged in the analysis” (Mohr 2000, p. 64). Furthermore,
we examined changes in the architectural profession, triangulating multiple sources of primary and secondary
historical data. We present our findings using a narrative
interpretation of our structural and historical analyses
(Thornton and Ocasio 2008).
Data Sampling
Category research focuses on exemplars and rules as
two important means by which actors learn a category
(Erickson and Kruschke 1998, Malt and Sloman 2007).
Exemplars are particularly important in the creation and
theorization of de novo categories because the rules
that determine which features define category membership and boundaries have not yet been constructed.
Hence, to examine the construction and evolution of
“modern architecture,” we relied on exemplars: texts
and buildings produced by eminent architects. Their
expert authority and institutionalized recognition made
them central to discourse and practice in the architectural profession (Larson 1993). We selected all architects
who received the two most widely recognized honors in architecture of their time: the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) and the Royal Institute of British
Architects (RIBA) Gold Medals for lifetime achievement. The AIA (since 1907) and RIBA (since 1848)
Gold Medals are the only consistent honoraria awarded
on a yearly basis by fellow professionals to architects
whose ideas and body of work had a lasting influence
on architecture and culture (Wilson 1984).
Architectural historians identify the period from 1890
to 1900 as the beginning of modern architecture
(Conrads 1971, Curtis 2005). Our study of eminent
architects thus began in 1870, ensuring that we fully captured the category’s formation, and concluded in 1975
for three reasons. First, the AIA and RIBA awards to
architects recognized as modernist had a natural break
after Louis Kahn, who received the AIA and RIBA in
1971 and 1972, respectively. The next winner of both
the AIA and RIBA was high-tech architect Norman
Foster in 1983 and 1994, respectively. Second, over
75% of the architects in our sample had died by 1975.
Their demise mirrors the decreased dialog about modernism, suggesting that the category had become taken
for granted (Colyvas and Powell 2006, Schneiberg and
Clemens 2006). Third, many in the architectural profession rejected modernism, adopting postmodernism,
which became an alternative approach in the 1970s
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
(Larson 1993). These criteria yielded 18 eminent architects. Because we required both material practices and
symbolic constructions, we excluded Sir Patrick Abercrombie, who was a town planner and never constructed
a building. Table 1 reports our final sample of 17
architects.
These 17 architects provided a diversity of viewpoints,
ranging from those who rejected “modern architecture”
to those who were deeply engaged in and advanced
its discourse and the practice. Architectural historians
and architects themselves noted distinct groups of architects that played an important role in both opposing and
theorizing the new category. To describe these groups,
we employed labels that the architects used themselves.
“Revivalists” were a dominant force in the architectural
profession during 1870–1920 (Brain 1989), as shown
by the multiple Gold Medals they won during this
period (see Table 1). Revivalism gained its name from
the revival of historical, primarily classical, architectural styles associated with the École des Beaux-Arts.
Mies van der Rohe noted how most architects had “ventured into the dangerous realm of the historical; to
some of these men the revival of classic forms seemed
reasonable, and in the field of monumental architecture, even imperative” (1946, p. 41). A second group,
“modern organic” architects, was centered in the United
States and Northern Europe (i.e., Finland). Frank Lloyd
Wright, Eliel Saarinen, and Alvar Aalto all referred to
their architecture as organic, and Wright theorized an
“organic architecture,” culminating in his 1953 treatise
“Organic Architecture: Language of Organic Architecture.” A third group of “modern functional” architects
was concentrated in Germany and France (many later
emigrating to the United States) and focused on the function of architecture, as made explicit by Walter Gropius
in 1926: “[A] container, a chair, or a house 0 0 0 must serve
its purpose perfectly, that is, it must fulfill its function usefully, be durable, economical and ‘beautiful’ ”
(reprinted in Conrads 1971, p. 95). Finally, as shown
on Table 1, the final group, which spanned Italy, Japan,
and the Unites States, represented a new wave of modernists who were considered “pluralists” because they
drew from both modern functional and modern organic
in creating original work.
Symbolic Elements: Analyzing Language in Architects’
and Audiences’ Texts. Professional journals played a
key role in the rise of modern architecture by providing a space for discourse and showcasing practices
(Lichtenstein 1990, Stephens 2002), similar to engineering (Shenhav 1995). We captured discourse within the
architectural profession through the 17 architects’ writings using archival research methods (Ventresca and
Mohr 2002, Colyvas and Powell 2006) and relying on
texts listed by the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, for a total of 283 articles (see Table 1).2 To supplement our analysis of architects’ texts, we collected a
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1527
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Table 1
Total Sample of Architects and Their Texts
Architect
McKim, Charles F. (1847–1909)
Webb, Sir Aston (1849–1930)
Laloux, Victor (1850–1937)
Östberg, Ragnar (1866–1945)
Lutyens, Edwin (1869–1944)
Wright, Frank Lloyd (1867–1959)
Dudok, Willem (1884–1974)
Saarinen, Eliel (1873–1950)
Aalto, Alvar (1898–1976)
Perret, Auguste (1874–1954)
Gropius, Walter (1883–1969)
Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig (1886–1969)
Le Corbusier (1887–1965)
Fuller, R. Buckminster (1893–1983)
Nervi, Pier Luigi (1891–1979)
Kahn, Louis (1901–1974)
Tange, Kenzo (1913–2005)
Nationality
AIA
Gold
Medal
RIBA
Gold
Medal
Revivalists
1909
1903
1907
1905
1922
1929
1933
1926
1925
1921
Modern organic
American
1949
1941
Dutch
1955
1935
Finnish/American
1947
1950
Finnish
1963
1957
Modern functional
French
1952
1948
German/American
1959
1956
German/American
1960
1959
French
1961
1953
American
1970
1968
Third-wave modernists
Italian
1964
1960
American
1971
1972
Japanese
1966
1965
American
British
French
Swedish
English
Total
random sampling of 5% of all reviews on the 17 architects by their audiences—architectural historians and
professional peers—during the time period of our study.
Articles on architects written after their death were
excluded. This resulted in 158 critiques and reviews.
To ensure that we were capturing the entire formation process of “modern architecture,” we also analyzed
articles written in English in the Avery Index that mentioned the word “modern” published before and right
after 1870. We began in 1853 with the publication of
the first article mentioning “modern” and ended in 1902,
capturing 36 articles. This analysis (available from the
authors) revealed that “modern” was used primarily as a
temporal modifier such as “modern Gothic” or “modern
feudal” to distinguish a contemporary Gothic or feudal
building from centuries’ old building. It also was applied
to new kinds of buildings such as skyscrapers. The term
“modern” co-occurred with art and architecture 300%–
400% more than any other terms, signaling a lack of
theorization of “modern architecture” as a new category.
Material Elements: Exemplary Buildings and Construction Materials. We focused on architects’ materials
in exemplary buildings to capture changes in modern
architecture over time. GreatBuildings.com (Matthews
2004) is one of the few data sources that identifies and
categorizes exemplary buildings by architectural style.
In December 2008, this database reported information
on 569 buildings that were constructed between 1870
and 1980, including 148 buildings by the 17 architects
in our sample. We also engaged in extensive archival
Texts in symbolic analysis
1881–1915
1919–1945
1946–1975
Total
2
4
1
1
1
0
3
1
2
8
0
0
0
0
0
2
7
2
3
9
6
0
0
0
39
1
6
17
16
7
6
5
61
8
12
22
2
1
0
1
0
9
10
13
15
4
0
29
9
16
9
11
40
22
32
13
0
0
0
0
1
0
10
24
4
10
25
4
19
128
135
283
searches to identify the materials used in these buildings.
We focused on seven materials that were used in more
than 10% of the buildings in our sample: stone, brick,
wood, concrete, reinforced concrete, glass, and steel.
Categorization by Architectural Styles. The categorization (by styles) of the 569 buildings listed on GreatBuildings.com is shown in Figure 1. Revivalist styles
dominated from 1870 through 1910. The “modern” style
first appeared in 1890, took off in the 1920s, and became
the dominant style from 1920 through the 1970s.
It is important to note that the categorization
by GreatBuildings.com, being retrospective, identifies
“modern” exemplars before “modern” as a category was
socially recognized by architects and relevant audiences.
For example, the first reported instance of a modern
building is by Daniel Burnham in 1890 (the Reliance
Building in Chicago). However, “modern” was not a
label applied to Burnham at the time nor was he recognized with a Gold Medal by the profession as making
a major contribution to architecture. His Chicago contemporary, Louis Sullivan, who also practiced from the
1880s through the 1920s, was not recognized as a modern architect until Morrison’s (1935) biography Louis
Sullivan: Prophet of Modern Architecture, and Sullivan
was awarded an AIA Gold Medal only in 1944, 20 years
after his death. To better understand this categorization, we triangulated the GreatBuildings data with the
retrospective categorization of modern architects in the
Contemporary Architects books (Emanuel 1980, 1994;
Morgan and Naylor 1987), which revealed that modern
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1528
Figure 1
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Retrospective Categorization of Exemplary Buildings by Architectural Style, 1870–1980
Period 1
12
Period 2
Period 3
10
8
6
4
2
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Number of exemplar buildings in revival styles (Neo-classical, Greek revival, Victorian,
Neo-Gothic, Romanesque)
Number of exemplar buildings in Proto-Modern styles (Arts and crafts, Art deco,
Art nouveau, Prairie style)
Number of exemplar buildings in modern styles (Early modern, Modern, Expressionist,
Structural, Brutalist, Corporate modern)
Number of exemplar buildings in Postmodern styles (Postmodern, Deconstructivist)
Number of exemplar buildings in vernacular styles (Vernacular, Neo-Vernacular, Shingle style)
Notes. Primary source: Matthews (2004) 4n = 5695. Each line represents the yearly average number of buildings in style in the previous
10 years.
architects were not recognized until the mid-1930s and
then increasingly so over time. Dudok was the first modern architect to win a Gold Medal in 1935.
Data Analysis: Structural Analysis of Architects’
Symbolic Systems and Material Practices
As noted earlier, we clustered our 17 architects into distinct but internally consistent groups. These groups were
guided by architectural historians’ and peers’ assessments and then verified by a prominent architectural historian and critic. A detailed step-by-step description of
our analysis is contained in the online appendix (available at http://dx/doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0701).
Institutional Logics: Symbolic Patterns in Binary Contrasts of Language. We analyzed architects’ and critics’ writings because the vocabularies of participants
reveal the social construction of reality (Berger and
Luckmann 1967) and act as a “window on the mind”
and “on culture” (Carley 1994, p. 291). Scholars have
employed structural network methods on texts to reveal
social actors’ symbolic systems such as categories, classifications, institutional logics, and mental maps, and
they are built on the assumption that language can be
modeled using networks in which nodes are not people or actors, as in traditional social network analysis, but rather words, where meaning can be inferred
from the co-occurrence between concepts (e.g., Carley
1994, 1997; Jones and Livne-Tarandach 2008; Mohr
and Duquenne 1997). This technique has been labeled
“network text analysis” (Popping 2000) and requires
researchers to filter, or select which concepts to map
(Carley 1997).
We employed a semiotic qualitative structural approach to filter the subset of relevant symbols using
paired contrasts (de Saussure 2008), which are the “basis
of classificatory systems” (Chander 2007, p. 102), to
reveal cultural meaning and appropriate for understanding aesthetic movements (Chandler 2007, pp. 102–103,
142), because they underlie the development of style
categorizations in art (Wölfflin 1950). Similar to Weber
et al. (2008), we read the texts and agreed upon
the most critical paired comparisons (six contrasts for
12 concepts)—modern–traditional, economic–artistic,
engineer–architect, machine–nature, industry–human,
and technical–organic—producing association matrices
that represent the dyadic co-occurrence of the most relevant symbols used. We displayed the co-occurrence
matrices to reveal how different architects (a) used distinct sets of symbols, (b) related symbols to one another,
and (c) changed their symbolic associations over time,
allowing us to represent “changes in the meaning structure” (Mohr 1998, p. 359). Symbols that are central in
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1529
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
these networks are shared either through agreement or
disagreement; this is particularly important for our analysis because we focused on how logics (i.e., shared and
deeply held assumptions) influenced the category formation process. We extracted quotes from texts to support
our network data and reveal how actors drew on logics
during the formation and evolution of the category.
Thornton and Ocasio 2008). Because logics provide the
institutional material through socially shared frameworks
by which actors define categories, we empirically assess
the sources for different logics in architecture, which
are clients who provided resources and opportunities for
building and whose expectations and needs shaped what
was built.
Artifact Codes: Relations Among Material Features.
We also examined the material elements that architects
used in their exemplary buildings. Thus, similar to Rao
et al. (2003, 2005) and Cerulo (1993), we attended to
the deployment of material elements in cultural products. We used a structural network analysis to visualize
the effects of logics on artifact codes: how different
groups of architects selected and combined materials
that enacted “modern architecture.” We traced the usage
and co-occurrence of the seven most frequently utilized
building materials (wood, brick, stone, concrete, reinforced concrete, steel, and glass) in the 148 buildings
by our 17 architects. When features are visible aspects
of a category (such as materials) and frequently cooccur, they render a category easier to recognize and
learn (Rosch and Mervis 1975). A de novo category with
a clear set of materials/features associated to it should
enhance its recognition as a distinct category by internal
and external audiences.
Client Sectors and Multiple Institutions. Architects
experience institutional pluralism because their clients
come from different societal sectors. For example, commercial buildings are designed for corporate and private
business clients, churches for religious organizations,
and residences for families, whereas town halls, civic
centers, museums, and state offices serve the political
and cultural aims of and are most often supported worldwide by the state. Within the profession, a shift in the
dominance of clients triggers a corresponding shift in
institutional logics that guide the profession.
To capture the dominance of client sectors, we analyzed the clients of a sample of 660 architects for 32,632
buildings from 1870 to 1980. We used two sources:
(1) Contemporary Architects, a reference compiled
by architectural historians Emanuel (1980, 1994) and
Morgan and Naylor (1987), and (2) collected building
data on 43 RIBA and AIA Gold Medal winners who
were not recognized as “modern architects” in Contemporary Architects. As shown in Figure 2, religious and
state clients were the dominant clientele during the formative stage of modern architecture—the 1870s through
the 1890s. These two client sectors are the most conservative social institutions, and the dominant styles of
Macro Environment of Plural Institutions:
Client Sectors and Evolution of the Profession
Scholars assume that individuals reside within multiple
institutional logics that coexist in states of negotiation
and conflict; they also assume that at the field level, logics
are historically contingent (Friedland and Alford 1991,
Figure 2
Evolution of Architects’ Clientele by Societal Sector, 1870–1980
90
Percentage of residential buildings (Family)
Percentage of commercial buildings (Market)
Percentage of institutional buildings (State)
Percentage of religious buildings (Religion)
80
70
60
(%)
50
40
30
20
10
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Notes. Primary sources: Emanuel (1980, 1994) and Morgan and Naylor (1987). The sample is composed of 660 architects for 32,632
buildings. Percentages reflect an average of a 10-year moving window.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1530
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
these buildings correspond to the profession’s focus on
historical revivalism—an honoring of and anchoring in
the traditions of the past. The largest client growth was
in residential (family) clients from the 1880s through
the 1930s, fueled by the increased urbanization of cities
and the rise of a middle class. During the 1880s, commercial clients grew dramatically, then fell off, and
then grew again from 1900 through the 1930s, the time
retrospectively identified by architectural historians as
the “birth of modern architecture” (e.g., Conrads 1971,
Curtis 2005). Commercial and family/residential buildings have the fastest rates of change (Brand 1995), facilitating experimentation with a new category. We expect
that distinct client sectors will influence which logics are
seen as relevant by architects and guide their theorization of and material enactment of artifact codes when
building for their clients.
Evolution of the Architectural Profession. A fully
fledged profession is signaled by professional schools
that codify and credential specialized knowledge, journals that transmit it, exemplars who personify expertise,
and licensing that excludes rivals from executing its professional knowledge (Abbott 1988). By 1900, the United
States had erected the foundations of the profession:
a professional association, the AIA, founded in 1857
(Woods 1999), which started awarding the prestigious
Gold Medals for lifetime achievement in 1907; preeminent architectural schools (e.g., the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Illinois, Syracuse,
Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard),
founded between 1867 and 1900 (Noffsinger 1955); state
licensure by 1897 (Boyle 1977); and professional journals (available by the 1890s).
Figure 3
Professionalization followed a much different path in
Europe. England was the first to establish a professional
association—the British Institute of Architects in 1834
(to become the Royal Institute of British Architects in
1866)—with competency exams and exemplars identified through the awarding of the Gold Medal starting in
1848; however, it had few architectural schools, relying
instead on informal apprenticeship (Wilton-Ely 1977).
Similarly, Germany relied heavily on trade schools and
apprenticeship until the 1920s, when Gropius sought
to transform architectural education with the Bauhaus
(Whitford 1984). In Italy, architectural schools and professional journals arose in the 1920s and were associated
with fascism, whereas France had the École des BeauxArts, founded in 1797, but no state licensure, professional journals, or unified professional association until
the 1920s (Scrivano 2004).
A profession’s logics and practices are influenced
by the rise of alternative professional schools (Dunn
and Jones 2010) and the development of professional
knowledge (Lounsbury 2007). For these reasons, we
tracked the rise of professional schools and number of
self-declared professionals, focusing on the United States
for two reasons. First, as noted above, the United States
was the only country that had institutionalized the key
pieces of a profession. Second, by the 1930s, the preeminent modernists who headed architectural schools resided
in the United States (i.e., Wright, Saarinen, Mies van der
Rohe, and Gropius). Figure 3 shows the growth patterns
over time of self-declared architects using U.S. census
data, controlling for the overall population, and of professional schools. The architectural profession was stagnant in terms of growth during the First World War, the
Evolution of Architectural Profession, Architectural Schools, and Modern Exemplars, 1870–1980
100
Number of architects in U.S. population (per 100,000)
Cumulative number of gold medals (RIBA and AIA) awarded to modernists
Cumulative number of architectural and design schools
80
60
40
20
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Note. Primary sources: U.S. Census, Emanuel (1980, 1994), Morgan and Naylor (1987), Noffsinger (1955), http://www.aia.org, and
http://www.architecture.com.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Depression, and the Second World War, likely because
of restricted materials and restricted building activity,
although the number of professional schools continued to
grow. The cumulative number of Gold Medals awarded
to modern architects, as categorized by Emanuel (1980,
1994) and Morgan and Naylor (1987), was nonexistent until the mid-1930s and grew exponentially from
the 1940s onward. These data reveal that professional
schools grew irrespective of world events, whereas the
number of professionals was constrained by forces that
affected the economy such as world wars and depression,
and modernists were not socially recognized as exemplars until the 1930s and grew exponentially thereafter.
Period Effects: Identifying Key Events. Our qualitative assessment of periods corresponds to the use of
period effects in quantitative studies of institutional logics (e.g., Thornton 2002, Kim et al. 2007). We attended
to relevant events that refer to “any occurrence that
is remarkable in some way—one that is widely noted
and commented on by contemporaries” (Sewell 1996,
pp. 841–842). We identified three periods punctuated
by wars: 1870–1915, 1919–1945, and 1946–1975. The
world wars disrupted the communication among architects by limiting exposure to and cross-pollination of
ideas through journal circulation and architects’ travel
for education, inhibiting one professional logic from
being widely shared. The end of the world wars brought
building opportunities, and after World War II, resources
were made available to countries by the Marshall Plan.
We verified these periods by examining the evolution of
the 17 architects’ productivity in writing and building
(results are available from the authors) as well as the
growth and categorization of styles as shown in Figure 1.
De Novo Category Formation, Contestation,
and Expansion
We use historical narrative and event sequences to
describe the formation, contestation, and expansion of
the de novo category “modern architecture.” In Period 1,
the emerging modernists rejected revivalist architects’
use of historical styles to signal a building’s function,
whereas revivalists insisted on basing architecture on
historical referents and ignored nascent “modern architects.” In Period 2, the conflict shifted into a discursive
struggle not only between revivalists and modernists but
also among modernists. Modernists argued over whether
to transpose a logic from commerce based on efficiency and functionality into the profession or transform
the profession’s aesthetic logic based on classical (i.e.,
Greek and Roman) historical referents to one based on
nature from Gothic architecture. These distinct logics
defined different artifact codes for modern: commercial
with a restricted code to new building materials only or
professional with a flexible code to include new with
traditional materials. In Period 3, the category “modern
1531
architecture” expanded when advocates of the commercial logic and restricted artifact code acknowledged the
transformed professional logic with a flexible artifact
code as modern, and a third wave of modernists was
pluralistic, integrating aspects of both logics and artifact
codes into their theorizing and buildings.
Period 1—Category Formation: Rejecting Revivalist
Traditions and Constructing Modern, 1870–1915
A key question at the turn of the 19th century was
whether architects should imitate and extend historical
styles or cast aside traditions in their entirety. Quotations
from Architectural Record in 1892 illustrate both sides
of this argument: “We have at this moment no style, no
traditions; we must imitate something” (Freeman 1892,
p. 398), and “Modern architecture 0 0 0 has used the dead
languages of extinct styles, copying incessantly where
it should have invented 0 0 0 0[not] 0 0 0 developing any truly
modern and characteristic system of constructive and
decorative forms” (Hamlin 1892, p. 265). The extent of
the dispute is highlighted in Figure 4, which displays how
three groups of architects—revivalists, modern organics, and modern functionalists—employed different institutional logics and deployed different combinations of
building materials. Each group took a different stance
on whether tradition should be maintained, changed, or
rejected.
Each group relied on clients from distinct societal
sectors to finance their buildings, a factor that influenced their logics and the side each took in the debate.
Revivalist architects garnered almost half of their commissions from religious and state clients (45%), a higher
share than those who advocated a “modern architecture” (modern organic, 26%; modern functional, 17%),
and controlled the vast majority of the overall demand
of these two sectors (72%). It is noteworthy that religious and state clients tend to be conservative, encoding historical referents into their buildings to connote
enduring qualities of culture and state (Viollet-le-Duc
2009, Brand 1995). In contrast, modern architects, who
rejected historical styles, had more commercial clientele (30% of commissions for modern functional and
18% for modern organic, for a combined 71% of the
overall demand). Commercial buildings changed frequently (Brand 1995), were designed to suit contemporary needs, and “involved problems of construction
fully as serious and difficult as were ever encountered in
the most stupendous of medieval cathedrals 0 0 0” (Hamlin
1891, p. 145). Consequently, the understanding of compression loads and statics, the introduction of new skeleton structures, and new technological innovations such
as the elevator (which made tall buildings habitable)
demanded de novo theorization. Thus, it is not surprising that a new category of architecture is associated with
the growth of a new client sector.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1532
Figure 4
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Structural Analysis for Category Formation, 1870–1915
Institutional logics: Symbolic patterns in binary contrasts of language
Tradition
Organic
Art
Economic
Nature
Industry
Architect
Technical
Machine
Modern
Artifact codes: Relations among material features
Glass
Brick
Concrete
Steel
Stone
Reinforced
concrete
Wood
Modern functional (Gropius, Le Corbusier, Perret)
Traditional material
Modern organic (Saarinen, Wright)
New material
..
Revivalists (Laloux, Lutyens, McKim, Ostberg, Webb)
All
Notes. Nodes are placed to facilitate visualization. The distance between nodes is not indicative of any network measure of association.
Samples are composed of 24 articles and 25 exemplar buildings.
The differences between the architects’ clientele and
related logics yielded starkly dissimilar symbolic structures. Revivalists emphasized the general concepts of
art, architect, modern, and technical, shown in the center of Figure 4 (top graph, solid lines). They used modern as a modifier to signal a contemporary rather than
ancient building. Although Charles McKim, as president of the AIA, acknowledged in his 1902 presidential address to the AIA that “technical instruction shall
be added” to fine arts training for the architect, he
reiterated that “the architect who would build for the
ages to come must have the training of the ages that
are past” (McKim 1902, p. 91). Between 1870 and
1920, revivalists trained primarily in the French École
des Beaux-Arts, had alumni who designed three of the
four Universal Expositions, were a significant force as
faculty and deans at European and American architectural schools, and were also prominent architectural
practitioners (Noffsinger 1955, Brain 1989); they dominated the profession. The profession valorized architects who built in classical revivalist style; they received
both Gold Medals (AIA and RIBA) from 1903 through
1933 (see Table 1). Revivalists enacted specific historical forms that signaled a building’s function. This artifact code was still so prevalent in 1939 that Wright
(1939, p. 856) openly advocated for a “modern architecture” with “no preconceived form fixing either its
present or its future 0 0 0 that a bank will not look like a
Greek temple, a university will not look like a cathedral, a fire-engine house will not resemble a French
chateau.” Revivalists employed traditional materials of
stone, wood, and brick, and when they used steel, they
covered it with such materials.
In contrast to revivalists, modern architects linked different concepts to the general concepts of art and modern, revealing two distinct approaches to the emerging
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
“modern architecture”: modern organic (Figure 4, dotted
lines) and modern functional (dashed lines). Modern
organic, as espoused by Wright, transformed the profession’s focus on art by incorporating both machine and
nature, revealed in the frequent associations of the terms
organic, nature, machine, and modern with art. Wright’s
approach drew on Gothic traditions used by the arts
and crafts movement and by his mentor, Louis Sullivan
(Morrison 1935, Scully 1974), both of which focused
on nature. He advocated nature as analogy for and purpose of modern architecture: “[Use] an ideal of organic
nature as a guide, so to unite these qualities to serve
[your] purpose 0 0 0 regardless of preconceived notions of
style 0 0 0 0 Grasp the nature of building a beautiful building beautifully, as organically true in itself, to itself and
to its purpose, as any tree or flower (Wright 1914, p. 413,
italics in original). Wright’s association of machine to
art might seem at odds with his emphasis on nature,
which the arts and crafts movement characterized as
opposites (Cumming and Kaplan 1991). Wright instead
saw them as complementary: the machine provided the
means through which the modern architect could produce art and address human needs. Describing how he
“deliberately chose to break with traditions in order to be
more true to Tradition than current conventions and ideals in architecture would permit” (Wright 1914, p. 407),
Wright sought to transform the profession’s logic based
on aesthetics by marrying it with the machine and new
materials. He moved across and combined both traditional and new materials such as concrete and steel with
wood, stone, or brick (Figure 4, bottom graph, dotted
lines).
Modern functionalists rejected the revivalists’ logic
of art based on tradition, contrasting the two terms.
Instead, they transposed the commercial logic of the
market into the profession, as seen in the constellation of concepts economic, industry, and technical with
modern and architect in Figure 4 (top graph). These
ideals, espoused by Gropius and Le Corbusier, were
first championed by the Deutscher Werkbund movement,
whose founder, Peter Behrens, mentored Gropius, Le
Corbusier, and Mies van der Rohe early in their careers.
The Werkbund was less an artistic movement than an
effort to focus on consumerism and commoditization
by reinventing traditional crafts using mass production
techniques (Schwartz 1996). Gropius argued that “methods based on craftsmanship are antiquated and must
be replaced by the acceptance of a modern concept of
industry” (1910/1961, p. 50). Gropius and Le Corbusier
proposed the analogy of machine industrialization to
understand what modern meant: “[C]ombine by means
of industrialization the aesthetic activity of the architect
and the economic activity of the entrepreneur” (Gropius
1910/1961, p. 50). Modern functionalists focused on
new materials—reinforced concrete, glass, and steel—to
maximize industrial productivity. For instance, Gropius’s
1533
Fagus Works (1913) was built on a projected steel skeleton and used broad glass windows as a façade (known
as a curtain wall) to increase lighting, improve working
conditions, and enhance productivity in the factory, highlighting his industrial approach to architecture. Already,
we see modern functional and modern organic architects
enacting distinct artifact codes for “modern architecture”
in their building materials.
Surprisingly, the architects’ audience, comprising professional peers and historians, did not play a central
role in the theorization of “modern.” Their symbolic
structures were more limited and less clear, denoted by
fewer concepts used such as art, architecture, and modern (results are available from the authors). They mostly
referred to Wright, who focused on human environments, and used the term engineer to describe Gropius
and Le Corbusier’s approach. Furthermore, audiences
focused on contrasting modern with tradition rather than
elaborating modern. They reacted negatively to early
modern buildings that did not conform to the historical styles advocated by the École des Beaux-Arts. For
instance, Russell Sturgis, a revivalist architect and critic
trained at the École, strongly criticized Wright’s Larkin
Building: “The lover of architecture who looks, perhaps
for the first time, at a building so entirely removed as
this one from the traditional styles and schools feels a
shock of surprise, and this a surprise which is the reverse
of pleasant 0 0 0 0 [It is] 0 0 0 an extremely ugly building. It
is, in fact, a monster of awkwardness” (Sturgis 1908,
p. 312).
To summarize, between 1870 and 1915, revivalist
architects served religious and state clients and dominated the profession and its aesthetic logic based on
historical styles, where forms such as a Gothic arch
or Greek column signaled a building’s function; they
ignored the nascent “modern architects.” In contrast,
the nascent “modern architects” served primarily commercial and residential clients, rejected the profession’s
reliance on historical styles to signal a building’s function, and experimented with new building materials
and aesthetics, which were not well received by their
audiences. Although modern architects rejected classical
revivalism, they formed distinct artifact codes that drew
from different logics. Modern organic sought to transform the profession’s logic by drawing on architecture’s
history of Gothic tradition, which focused on nature
and marrying traditional with new materials, whereas
modern functional transposed a commercial logic of
industrialization into the profession and focused on new
materials. Table 2 provides an overview of these three
distinct artifact codes and the logics underpinning them.
The distinctiveness of these initial forays into theorizing “modern architecture”—one primarily American
(i.e. Wright and Saarinen emigrated to the United States
in 1914) and the other European (i.e., Gropius and
Le Corbusier)—was reinforced by World War I, which
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1534
Table 2
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
A Comparison of Architects During Formation of Category “Modern Architecture,” 1870–1915
Revivalists
Modern organic
Modern functional
Actors
McKim, Laloux, Webb, Östberg,
Lutyens
Wright and Saarinen (joined by Dudok
and Aalto in following period)
Gropius, Le Corbusier, and Perret (joined
by Mies van der Rohe and Fuller in
following period)
Clientele
Human traditions (39%
institutional–state, 6% religious)
Pluralistic mix of adaptive and tradition
(52% residential, 29% institutional)
Adaptive and functional (51% residential,
30% commercial)
Professional: Transform aesthetic
traditions from classical to Gothic
and incorporate industrial production
to enhance artistic expression
Commercial: Reject aesthetic traditions
and transpose market into profession
for universal, efficient, and
economical solutions of industrial
production
Modern as new category: Art based on
nature and the organic that serves
human needs
Modern as new category: Reject tradition
and base art on technical, industrial,
and economic needs and processes
Flexible: Combines traditional (wood,
stone, brick) and new (concrete,
steel, glass)
Restricted: Focus on new
materials—concrete, steel, and glass
Guiding logic
Professional: Enact aesthetic tradition
based on historical knowledge and
referents
Symbolic system
Modern as modifier: Contemporary
architecture and art that is more
technical than prior architecture
Artifact code
Restricted: Focus on wood, stone,
brick; steel used but covered
disrupted professionals’ communication and travel and
hindered the development of a shared set of assumptions
required if a dominant logic with a unified artifact code
were to guide “modern architecture.”
Period 2—Category Contestation2 Theorization and
Institutionalization of Artifact Codes, 1919–19453
Architects in the profession erupted into open contestation. Importantly, only the terms nature, art, and technical were used by all architects (Figure 5, top graph).
Revivalists were the most vocal opponents of modern
functional architecture, and their opposition is reflected
in their constellation of concepts: modern, tradition,
architect, and engineer. The revivalists advocated that
architects uphold traditions from art and nation rather
than pursue the technical and industrial solutions of
modern functionalists, who instead valorized the engineering profession, which had aligned itself with commerce (Shenhav 1995). Lutyens (1932, p. 164) argued
that “[the architect] has capitulated to the engineer 0 0 0 the
architect alone 0 0 0 should watch and safeguard the traditions of the country he builds in, and the locality
with its personality.” Östberg (1934, p. 34) agreed:
“[T]he purely technical is never art 0 0 0 0 Types such as
Corbusier, the Swiss 0 0 0 lose themselves in all possible,
unrelieved, mechanical functionalism and are prone to
technical repetition.”
Although revivalists acknowledged that new materials
spawned new forms—based on intersecting planes rather
than the counterforce of stone blocks—they held fast
to traditional materials and building techniques. Östberg
(1934, p. 36) noted, “We no longer build in the true
meaning of the word, by laying stone upon stone 0 0 0 0
We mold, with or without iron re-enforcement.” Lutyens
(1931, p. 775) articulated eloquently the value of traditional materials and the intensity of the conflict among
architects: “Traditional ways of handling material (tiles,
bricks, timber, and stone) are the basis of style in architecture, besides one of its chief joys 0 0 0 0 The modern
impersonal architecture of so-called functionalism does
not 0 0 0 show as yet a genuine sense of style 0 0 0 0 One cannot make friends, through it, with the men who built it.”
Revivalists, whose primary clientele were anchored in
the conservative logics of religion and state, continued
to value and build in historical styles with traditional
materials, such as stone and brick (Figure 5, bottom
graph, solid lines), that are associated with monumental buildings: churches, parliaments, town halls, and elite
colleges.
Modern organic architects sought to transform the
architectural profession from one based on classical historical styles to one based on Gothic architecture’s focus
on nature and one that subjugated technical innovation
to the human needs of the new century. They relied
more on institutional and religious clients than did modern functional (45% versus 32% and 8% versus 4%,
respectively) and less on commercial clients (21% versus 29%); thus, their client base reinforced an emphasis
on human needs rather than commercial ends. Their constellation of terms (Figure 5, top graph) unites organic,
human, and nature with art and technical, indicating that
they subordinated the technical to serve human needs
rather than reject it as did revivalists or prioritize it as
did modern functionalists. Wright declared, “Architecture expresses human life, machines do not, nor does
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1535
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Figure 5
Structural Analysis for Category Contestation, 1919–1945
Institutional logics: Symbolic patterns in binary contrasts of language
Technical
Human
Industry
Art
Modern
Machine
Economic
Nature
Tradition
Organic
Engineer
Architect
Artifact codes: Relations among material features
Steel
Wood
Concrete
Brick
Reinforced
concrete
Glass
Stone
Modern functional (Fuller, Gropius, Le Corbusier,
Mies van der Rohe, Perret)
Modern organic (Aalto, Dudok, Saarinen, Wright)
Revivalists (Laloux, Lutyens, Östberg, Webb)
All
Traditional material
New material
Notes. Nodes are placed to facilitate visualization. The distance between nodes is not indicative of any network measure of association.
Samples are composed of 124 articles and 39 exemplar buildings.
any appliance whatsoever. Appliances only serve life”
(Wright 1931, p. 49). Aalto argued that the technical
serves human needs, a point made more pressing by the
war: “[T]he technique of the present war destroys 0 0 0 we
need a more organic social awareness, giving priority
to the needs of human beings 0 0 0 relegating the technical
resources 0 0 0 to their proper subsidiary role” (Aalto 1941,
p. 78). Modern organic architects vilified the commercial
logic of modern functional architects (“commerce 0 0 0 has
no soul”; Wright 1928, p. 334) and referred to the
skyscraper as “a stupendous adventure in the business
of space-making for rent—a monstrosity” (Wright 1931,
p. 48). They provided an alternative vision of “modern
architecture” based on nature: “Organic buildings are the
strength and lightness of the spider’s spinning, buildings
qualified by light, bred by native character to environment” (Wright 1931, p. 49). Saarinen highlighted nature
as an analogy: “Nature is our teacher in the principles
of architecture” (Saarinen 1932, p. 237). These archi-
tects combined traditional and new materials together in
a flexible artifact code, responding to the conditions of
institutional pluralism reflected by their heterogeneous
clientele (Figure 5, bottom graph). Wright and Saarinen
institutionalized their approach by founding or leading
schools in the United States: the Frank Lloyd Wright
School of Architecture at Taliesin (1932) and the Cranbrook Academy of Art (1925), respectively.
The commercial logic underlying modern functional
architecture (Figure 5, top graph) is captured by the
constellation of economic, industry, technical, modern,
and machine. Modern functional architects institutionalized their logic through schools and associations. The
Bauhaus, founded by Gropius in 1919 in Germany and
later headed by Mies van der Rohe, trained architects
to follow a commercial logic. At the Bauhaus, “practical designs for present-day goods were conscientiously
worked out as models for mass production” (Gropius
1934, p. 680). Le Corbusier cofounded the Congrès
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1536
Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) in 1928,
and in their charter they “refuse categorically” any past
work methods and embrace “rationalization and standardization” (Conrads 1971, pp. 109–110). Le Corbusier
dismissed the criticisms of both revivalists and modern organic architects: “A new architecture has been
born, breaking with tradition 0 0 0 0 [It] is efficient and
economical; it is rational and functional; it responds to
the profound aspirations of the modern conscience and
expresses a new era of civilization” (1935, p. 18). As
the period drew to a close, Le Corbusier recognized the
conflict as disrupting: “[S]plit into two totally opposed
camps 0 0 0 entailing different states of conscience” (1944,
p. 49, translated by authors). Modern functional architects emphasized new materials to create new forms. In
1923, Mies van der Rohe declared, “The materials are
concrete, iron, glass. Ferroconcrete buildings are essentially skeleton structures 0 0 0 0 That means skin and bone
construction” (Mies van der Rohe 1923, p. 3). Gropius
argued that “new industrially improved building materials are competing with those provided by Nature and
are about to get the better of them. These new building
materials—steel, concrete, glass—have rendered it possible to erect wide-spanned, amply lighted rooms and
buildings at a great saving of structural material” (1931,
p. 273). Hence, Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Perret, and Gropius developed an artifact code based on this
restricted set of materials, casting aside traditional materials and techniques (Figure 5, bottom graph). Gropius
and Mies van der Rohe moved the modern functionalist
approach to the United States when they fled Nazism
in 1937: Gropius to Harvard and Mies van der Rohe
to Illinois Institute of Technology (formerly the Armour
Institute of Technology).
Audiences responded to the contestation among
revivalist, modern organic, and modern functional architects in different ways. The professional associations
awarded their prestigious Gold Medals first to revivalists (Östberg and Lutyens) and then to modern organic
architects (Dudok and Wright; see Table 1). In contrast,
key critics Henry-Russell Hitchcock, Philip Johnson, and
Sigfried Giedion (cofounder with Le Corbusier of the
CIAM) heralded modern functional as the exemplars
for the prototype of “modern architecture” and identified Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier as
the leaders of the “modern movement.” Hitchcock and
Johnson (1995) labeled Wright, Saarinen, and Dudok as
“half-modern,” but later in 1951, Hitchcock recanted this
position. Modern functionalists’ restricted set of materials, which were visible and provided high category contrast with revivalists, made it easier for audiences to recognize and label them as “modern.” In contrast, “modern
organic” architects mixed new with traditional materials, reducing their contrast with revivalists, who used
traditional materials and thus delayed their recognition
as “modern architects.” Indeed, in 1942, a full decade
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
after his initial categorization of 1932, Hitchcock identified Wright’s Fallingwater (1935) as “epitomiz[ing]
the aspirations not of Wright alone, but of all modern architects 0 0 0 a new cycle of world architecture had
opened 0 0 0 for premature end in Europe with the coming of war” (Hitchcock 1942, pp. 91–92). Dudok’s 1935
RIBA Gold Medal ceremony revealed a confused audience. An honorary speaker reflected the unresolved and
opaque struggle over the labeling of “modern architecture”: “[I] have never yet discovered whether Mr. Dudok
is a Modernist or a Traditionalist” (Anonymous 1935,
p. 690). Ironically, the next speaker called Dudok “our
only anchor against the Modernists!” (Anonymous 1935,
p. 690). Not only were audiences confused, but they also
were aware of the conflict within the profession. Even
the president of RIBA, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, noted
the intensity of the schism: “Modernists and traditionalists can see nothing in contemporary efforts that are
not expressed in the particular form that they themselves
favour” (Anonymous 1935, p. 685). Audiences conceptualized modern based on art, architecture, and tradition, which architects voiced in Period 1, while simply
recognizing architects’ distinct analogies—nature and
technical—but not elaborating them (results are available from the authors).
In sum, this period revealed a battle over “modern
architecture” within the profession and between modern organic and modern functional architects driven by
their distinct logics that guided different artifact codes.
Modern organic architects relied more on institutional
and religious clients (52% of their total commissions),
who valued human needs, whereas modern functional
architects relied more on residential and commercial
clients (63% of their total commissions), who valued
functionality and adaptability of buildings. The discursive struggle took an unpredictably sharp turn in 1932,
when Hitchcock and Johnson defined modern functional
as “modern” while labeling the modern organic only
as “half-modern,” creating a disrupting event that was
recognized by architects and audiences. These divergent
logics and artifact codes caused confusion among audiences, and the intense contestation promised to either
divide the modern movement or prompt reconciliation in
the next period.
Period 3—Category Expansion2 Pluralism and
Integration, 1946–1975
After the intense conflict of Period 2, this period witnessed the acceptance of pluralism and expansion of
the category “modern architecture.” The two modernist
factions remained wedded to and guided by their distinct logics (Figure 6, top graph). Modern organic architects still conceived of modern architecture as being
based on nature, organic, human, and art (and reincorporated machine, which Wright introduced in Period 1
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1537
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Figure 6
Structural Analysis for Category Expansion, 1946–1975
Institutional logics: Symbolic patterns in binary contrasts of language
Human
Machine
Economic
Nature
Art
Technical
Organic
Modern
Architect
Artifact codes: Relations among material features
Reinforced
concrete
Brick
Steel
Stone
Concrete
Glass
Wood
Modern functional (Fuller, Gropius, Le Corbusier,
Mies van der Rohe)
Modern organic (Aalto, Wright)
Traditional material
New material
Modern third wave (Kahn, Nervi, Tange)
All
Notes. Nodes are placed to facilitate visualization. The distance between nodes is not indicative of any network measure of association.
Samples are composed of 135 articles and 84 exemplar buildings.
and functionalists highlighted in Period 2). Wright continued to reject the commercial logic underlying modern
functional architecture as “too easy to commercialize or
teach” (1952, p. 152). He rejected the claims of science as a basis for architecture and advocated instead
the traditional sources of art and humanities: “Now science can give us the toolbox and the tools in it—and
leave us there 0 0 0 0 Let us forget science except as a
mere technique to achieve the ends of the spirit; only
the prophet, the poet, the philosopher can help us now”
(Wright 1950, p. 232). In his acceptance address for the
AIA Gold Medal in 1955, Dudok concurred, describing
modern functional architecture as “spatial engineering”
defined by “boxes 0 0 0 architecture with very much glass”
and wondering “if human life finds sufficient expression
in these essentially hard, razor-sharp buildings” (p. 52).
Modern functionalists remained anchored in their conceptions of modern, shown by the concepts economic,
technical, art, and architect (Figure 6, top graph, dashed
lines), and nature is linked to modern, but it became
increasingly divergent. Gropius described “nature” in
ways remarkably similar to modern organic: “A new set
of standards in architecture has been born which draws its
life from the climate, from the soil, and from the habits of
the people” (1946, p. 26). At other times, Gropius (1967,
p. 104) reasserted a commercial logic guiding modern
architecture: “The architect has to recognise the impact
of industrialisation and to understand its technical and
economic implications. Then structure and mechanical
parts can become forceful and eloquent vehicles of artistic expression.” Le Corbusier, in contrast, reasserted his
earlier theme, espousing the inevitable march of engineers and science: “Science knows no limit or frontier,
nor do mathematical formulae, axioms, or machines 0 0 0 0
The engineers dispersed throughout the world, spreading their science and enterprise” (1947, p. 67). Only
Le Corbusier remained intransigent, whereas Mies van
der Rohe and Gropius, now colocated in the United
States, publicly paid homage primarily to Wright—Mies
van der Rohe (1946) in “A Tribute to Frank Lloyd
Wright” and Gropius, who acknowledged Wright, Aalto,
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1538
and Le Corbusier, expressing reconciliation of modernists (1946):
We all agree that architecture is an art, that its scope
reaches beyond the realms of science and technique 0 0 0 0
(p. 10)
Tradition does not mean imitation of the past0 0 0 0 [It is]
rather the preservation of essentials in the creative process of the fluctating life which lies at the back of all
materials and every technique 0 0 0 0 (p. 11)
Yet, what a variety of architectural expression has
resulted from it in the different countries! As great a variety as we shall find when we compare buildings of a
Frank Lloyd Wright in the United States, a Le Corbusier
in France, and an Alvar Aalto in Finland. They vary
ever so much in their form-expression, according to the
various regional conditions which their architects have
studied and they vary also with regard to the personal
peculiarities of their creators. (pp. 23, 26)
Modern functionalists were now also engaging in
more work for institutional clients (49% in Period 3 versus 30% in Period 2), which may have sensitized them
to the more conservative clients and the role of architectural traditions in expressing monumental rather than
strictly functional architecture.
A new wave of modernists, which included Nervi,
Tange, and Kahn, became active in this period but did
not participate in the discursive struggles that characterized Period 2 and continued between Wright and Le Corbusier. Instead, they united concepts that had anchored
distinct logics such as nature, art, and human with technical and economic, as shown in Figure 6 (top graph,
dashed lines with dots). Tange suggested that modern
architecture will “bring harmony between the individual
and the whole and between technology and humanity”
(1961, p. 34) and observed that destruction from the war
made reconciliation possible: “[C]ontemporary architecture in Japan in the true sense started with the reconstruction after the devastation caused by World War II”
(1956, p. 30). Similarly, Nervi synthesized “architect”
with “engineer,” arguing that “the architect must have an
understanding of structural concepts so deep and well
integrated as to transform these concepts 0 0 0 into a unique
synthesis and into an intuitive and spontaneous sensibility” (1956, p. 8). Kahn married diverse approaches. He
was trained in the Beaux-Art tradition, influenced by Le
Corbusier, and was similar to Wright in placing technology at the service of human needs: “[N]ew materials,
new technologies are servants to the pulse of human
rapport” (1971, p. 34). This more human modern architecture flowered in the late 1940s and 1950s because of
reconstruction from the devastation of World War II and
resources made available by the Marshall Plan.
The presence of pluralism and integration is seen in
which materials were utilized in buildings (Figure 6, bottom graph). All groups (modern functionalists, modern
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
organics, and third-wave modernists) relied heavily on
new materials (concrete, glass, and reinforced concrete),
which were closely associated with commercial buildings. Modern organic architects (Figure 6, bottom graph
and dotted lines) continued to mix traditional materials (stone, wood, brick) with new materials, and thirdwave modernists deployed unique combinations (i.e.,
steel with concrete or concrete with wood) from the two
distinct artifact codes. By embracing both artifact codes
of modern, Kahn, Nervi, and Tange used the tension
between them as inspiration for creating highly original
yet very diverse buildings—all within the category of
modern.
Audiences retained their focus on the general triad
modern–art–architecture, without uniting the binary
contrast that underlay the two logics of commerce
and profession, as done by the third-wave modernists.
During this period, the profession valorized pluralism
by awarding Gold Medals (see Table 1) first to modern
organic architects such as Aalto, Saarinen, and Wright,
and then later to modern functionalist architects such
as Gropius, Mies van der Rohe, and Le Corbusier, and
then finally to third-wave modernists who integrated
both logics and enacted a flexible artifact code for modern architecture. External audiences, following Mies van
der Rohe and Gropius, advocated pluralism within modern. In 1949, Philip Johnson, who initially declared
Wright, Dudok, and Saarinen as “half-moderns,” proclaimed Wright “the founder of modern architecture as
we know it in the West 0 0 0 0 All younger moderns—
except, perhaps Le Corbusier—acknowledge Wright’s
influence, though some may forget the debt in their later
years” (p. 105). In 1951, Henry-Russell Hitchcock publicly apologized in Architectural Record for the “condescending” term “half-modern.” In 1954, leading critic
Vincent Scully highlighted how Wright paved the way
for Mies van der Rohe and Le Corbusier, who in turn
reinvigorated Wright’s work during the 1920s. Thus, the
tension between the two factions of “modern architects,”
guided by distinct logics and expressed in different artifact codes, became acknowledged as a source of creative
inspiration.
Audiences also recognized the third-wave modernists
as an integrative force in modernism. In his 1966 tribute to Tange, Boyd declared, “[Tange] has become
an architect of the world largely because his work
is so intensely Japanese. For he has demonstrated to
the world’s great satisfaction that a unique regionalism
may develop genuinely within the international modern idiom” (p. 82). Similarly, in his RIBA award ceremony in 1960, Ove Arup described Nervi as “a man
who has refused to submit to the schism which has
befallen the art of building 0 0 0 [as one who] 0 0 0 did not
seek to lead any movement” (Anonymous 1960, p. 229).
Scully (1962, p. 43) described Kahn’s buildings as
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
“passionately uniting the rational preoccupations of science with the nonrational assertions of art.” Thus, in
Period 3, following the devastation of the Second World
War, architects within the modern movement focused
on an architecture that met human needs and sought to
heal wounds inflicted by open conflict in the previous
period. Moreover, audiences that had categorized modern functionalists as “modern” and modern organics as
“half-modern” recanted their positions, acknowledging
Wright and others as contributors to “modern architecture.” Finally, a third wave of modernists drew from
both camps of modernism to inspire their original work.
Together, these factors ensured the acceptance and integration of plural logics and artifact codes, expanding the
category “modern architecture.”
Discussion and Conclusion
Our study traced the formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category “modern architecture.”
We drew on institutional logics to show that modern
architecture was shaped, from its inception, by fights
over logics based on distinct client sectors and serviced
by different groups of architects who enacted “modern architecture” through both symbols and materials
(Friedland and Alford 1991, Friedland 2001). Our finegrained analysis of logics—both the binary contrasts of
symbols and the materials of artifact codes—revealed
that, as the profession’s aesthetic logic advanced by
revivalists, who disproportionately relied on commissions from religious and state clients, was displaced, two
competing approaches to modern architecture guided by
distinct logics emerged. Differences between these logics led to contestation in the modern movement’s formative period (1921–1945). Modern organic architects
served a greater percentage of more conservative clients
(i.e., religious and state), transformed the profession’s
aesthetic logic from classical to Gothic ideals based on
nature, and integrated new materials and methods into
the profession’s artifact code. In contrast, modern functional architects served a greater percentage of business
clients, eschewed the profession’s aesthetic logic and traditional materials, transposed a commercial logic into
the profession, and deployed a restricted artifact code of
new materials.
The category literature has tended to treat categories
as static rather than dynamic (Lena and Peterson 2008,
Ruef and Patterson 2009) and has often relied on methods that trace the evolution of the label but not the
content and meaning of that category. Our longitudinal analysis and results showed that “modern architecture” changed dramatically over time, buffeted by social
forces and contestation among members, who fought
over the meaning and direction of modern so it could
express their interests and identities and reflect their status in the profession. By tracking categories over short
1539
periods of time and only among audiences, researchers
may be overemphasizing static and consensual dynamics
of categories. Furthermore, simply tracking the evolution
of the usage of a categorical label is not sufficient,
because the meanings of and categorical boundaries
evolve as a category is adopted. In fact, contrary to
previous studies, we found that a shared interpretive
framework came through a process of boundary expansion rather than contraction (Colyvas and Powell 2006)
or collective consensus (Hsu and Hannan 2005, Cattani
et al. 2008). As we noted in our introduction, modern
architecture has no clear definition (Wilson 1984), likely
because modern architecture never contracted through
either consensus or the dominance of one logic with
a restricted artifact code. Our findings suggest that a
new category may house multiple, distinct, and sometimes conflicting exemplars, expanding rather than contracting boundaries around a clearly defined prototype
for the category. These multiple exemplars, driven by
enduring pluralism from clients and their respective logics within the modern architecture movement, infused
the category with a robust and multivocal identity that
enhanced its capacity to adapt and become a dominant
style for decades.
Our study also showed that the process of de novo
category formation versus the formation of a new category entails particular challenges. Actors who attempt to
create a de novo category may be faced with a doubleedged sword: a greater contrast with existing categories’
artifact codes allows actors and audiences to recognize
and classify it as new (Rosch and Mervis 1975), yet it
simultaneously makes it harder for audiences to understand and accept the new category. In contrast, a new category that is a hybrid allows actors to draw upon existing
categories, such as car and truck, to interpret and make
sense of a new category as they did with the minivan
(Rosa et al. 1999). In our study, modern functionalists
had greater contrast in their commercial logic and artifact code with revivalists, which made it easier for audiences to recognize and label a new style of architecture.
Yet their ideas sparked intense conflict with revivalists
and other modernists, and it took decades to resolve
the dispute over the category and its boundaries—who
and what was or was not included as “modern.” In contrast, modern organic architects had greater overlap with
revivalists both in their professional logic based on aesthetics and their artifact code of incorporating traditional
materials, making it harder for audiences and peers to
see them as distinct, but also enabling them to gain earlier acceptance within the profession. Modern organic
architects received the Gold Medals years before the
modern functionalists did. Thus, logics within a profession evolve, and categories that seek to alter radically a
profession’s logic are likely to encounter stiff resistance,
because the new category also alters identities, interests,
and statuses for both producers and audiences.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1540
Unlike most category studies that focus on market contexts in which products are comparable through
either standardization or commensuration processes,
such as cars (Porac et al. 2001), businesses (Ruef and
Patterson 2009), software (Pontikes 2010) and art markets (Khaire and Wadwani 2010), this study details an
instance of category formation within the context of a
profession. In markets, the presence of a dominant logic
may strengthen a category by enlarging and stabilizing
a customer base because that base demands predictability and likely enhances audiences’ power over producers by controlling, evaluating, or directing consumption
and production opportunities. In such contexts, audiences may be the primary theorizers of new categories.
However, when products or services demand customization, the presence of multiple logics may facilitate originality by offering actors a broad variety of frameworks
to exploit. The range of clientele and expectations of
professional providers may provide variation in category
content. As the architects in our study noted, architecture is an art where originality in terms of novel building materials, designs, and new forms of buildings is
critical. These conditions militated against standardized
materials and forms, which were criticized as “repetitive” and “monotonous,” but which are critical for the
comparison of features that enable commensuration processes in markets. Under these conditions, the availability of multiple logics may result in category expansion
and revitalization and be driven by producers, not audiences. Drawing on Thornton et al. (2005), we speculate that the coexistence of plural logics may influence
category boundaries through facilitating multiple, conflicting exemplars or logics, such as in medicine (Dunn
and Jones 2010) or charter schools (King et al. 2011).
A comparative study of markets based on commensuration and professions based on customization can help
to unpack whether plural logics can coexist and the
range of exemplars in a category, shaping the leniency
of category boundaries and identify scope conditions of
categories.
Our findings also show that producers (architects in
our case) were the primary theorizers, which differs
from most research that credits external audiences as
the tastemakers of cultural products (Shrum 1991, Hsu
2006a, Porac et al. 2001, Zuckerman 1999). Audiences
that evaluate and provide status are professional peers
and architectural historians; thus, producers and audiences comingle with no clear interface between them
(Abbott 1988, Greenwood et al. 2002). Scholars of
categorization, however, rarely assess the role that professionals play in theorizing and representing a new
category, and they tend to focus on consumers, even
in studies that claim to examine the actions of both
producers and consumers. In addition, the architects’
clientele supported distinct approaches to modern architecture; thus, the diversity of client demands may be an
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
important variable in who theorizes and the content of
theories. It may also be that only certain audience members influence a professional or cultural field as a result
of, for example, status differentials, a factor that is not
captured by the limited analysis of external audiences
presented in this study. High-status audience members
may play a pivotal role in identifying who is worthy of
being remembered and placed into collective memory
(Jones 2010) and what logics or combination of logics
should guide artifact codes. Who theorizes a new category and the role of a theorizers’ status may provide
important insights into category formation and evolution.
Our results also contribute to institutional theory by
revealing the microfoundations of institutional logics
and change and by examining a process that leads to
a stable condition of pluralism that allows for enduring differences to coexist. We examined how institutional logics were enacted through language (Friedland
and Mohr 2004, Powell and Colyvas 2008, Suddaby and
Greenwood 2005). By analyzing the key binary contrasts used by architects, we reveal linguistic patterns
and how they theorized a de novo category, drawing
on institutional logics available and salient to them to
elaborate the meaning of modern. Their distinct views
were reflected in different key words, which were contrasted with modern, such as tradition, and also used
as complements to elaborate modern, such as technical,
art, machine, and industry for modern functional architects versus art, human, architect, organic, and nature
for modern organic architects. The pattern of these cooccurring words revealed not only the logic upon which
these architects drew to fashion the new category of
modern but also how they infused the same term “modern architecture” with distinct meanings and practices.
Within institutional theory, few studies have examined
enduring plural logics (Greenwood et al. 2011), focusing instead on how conflict between logics is usually
resolved in a shift toward a dominant logic within a profession in which divergent meanings settle in common
practices (e.g., Thornton 2002, Suddaby and Greenwood
2005). Our findings indicate that both pluralism and difference were inherent in and influenced the dynamics
of the architectural profession. Architects simultaneously
served multiple clients from distinct social sectors—
commercial, state, family, and religion. Yet architects
also tended to serve one or two client sectors more
strongly than others, driving their desire and ability to
embrace a new logic or revise an existing logic, utilize new materials that enacted a restricted or flexible artifact code, and develop a new category such as
modern architecture. Research that compares the degree
of plurality in logics might tease out whether dominant, hybrid, or plural logics are associated consistently
with category processes of contraction, consensus, or
expansion. Because many professions such as nursing,
law, academia, accounting, and medicine are undergoing
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1541
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
profound change, our findings provide fruitful directions
into how logics drive shifts in artifact codes, altering
the meaning of a profession for professionals and audiences. In addition, by examining artifact codes, scholars may aid research on institutional logics. Currently,
there is little theorizing that helps adjudicate between
societal-level logics and those used in practice, spawning a plethora of “logics” (e.g., expertise, performance,
trustee, fiduciary, aesthetic, efficiency) often within the
same societal sector such as profession. Rather than
“hybrid logics,” which suggest new societal-level understandings, these combinations are likely the translation
of societal-level understandings into actors’ practices of
them (Lounsbury and Crumley 2007). Artifact codes
reveal how actors select and combine elements of logics
as interpretive acts to address the challenges they face
and give meaning to the societies in which they live.
Our study also has some limitations that might be
overcome by future studies. First, we did not examine the entire field of architecture but focused on the
elite architects that were the opinion makers of modern architecture and potentially ignored the influence of
contractors, engineers, and related professionals who are
critical to the construction of a building (Blau 1984,
Larson 1993). Thus, we did not assess the full ecology
of the profession (Abbott 1988). Second, although our
study hinted at architects’ distinct logics being instilled
through different apprenticeship experiences and institutionalized into the profession through new schools, journals, exhibitions, and associations, we did not examine
these relations and patterns within the modern movement. Social movement and social network research
may provide important insights into how the relational
and movement dynamics shaped “modern architecture.”
Social movement research has focused on what drives
membership and how common experiences and organizations facilitate collective action (Davis et al. 2005) that
can improve understanding of how professions change
(Zald 2008), whereas social network theory may help to
understand when and where schisms occur because of
the presence of cross-cutting ties or brokers that are key
to maintaining integrated social systems (Simmel 1950).
In conclusion, the formation of the de novo category “modern architecture” was a long and arduous process. Modern architects engaged in fierce contestation,
fueled by conflicting logics and championing different
artifact codes. When the conflict threatened to rupture
the modern movement, key architects initiated reconciliation and expansion of category boundaries. Audiences
followed, embracing two logics with distinct artifact
codes of “modern” and a variety of exemplars that epitomized “modern.” These tensions became the creative
material for third-wave modernists who integrated the
former oppositions into their original approach. Because
the profession emphasizes customization for clients and
originality as the basis for status rather than standardization and market commensuration, diverse exemplars
that were based on or married distinct logics and artifact codes were not only possible but rewarded by Gold
Medal awards within the profession. Thus, the tent poles
of the modern movement were stretched taut, almost
to the point of snapping, but they instead expanded to
include plural voices and approaches to “modern architecture,” reinvigorating the category and stimulating creative solutions.
Electronic Companion
An electronic companion to this paper is available as part of
the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0701.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Adeane Bregman, head librarian
at Bapst Arts Library, Boston College, for her exceptional help
and expertise in sourcing primary documents. They also thank
research assistants at Boston College: Meena Andiappian,
Kristen Carpuso, Anthony Huang, Kristen Rafuse, and Andrea
Tunarosa. They thank Helena Viladàs for her committed
research assistantship at ESADE. They are grateful to Boston
College and the ESADE Business School for the funding provided during the course of the research project. They are
grateful to editor Klaus Weber and five anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions; they pushed
to improve this manuscript, and the authors appreciate their
help and patience. The authors also thank the following for
their helpful feedback: Diane Burton, Emilio Castilla, Francois
Collet, Jeanette Colyvas, Mark Ebers, Judy Edington, Roberto
Fernandez, Sarah Williams Goldhagen, Aleksios Gotsopoulos,
Royston Greenwood, Stine Grodal, Paul Hirsch, Jeff Lowenstein, Ignasi Marti, Willie Ocasio, Siobhan O’Mahony, Damon
Phillips, Ray Reagans, and the participants of the 2010 Kellogg Management and Organizations Colloquium Series, the
2010 Harvard–MIT Economic Sociology Seminar series, the
2009 Barcelona Organization Theory Initiative, the 2009 Organization Science Winter Conference, the 2008 Boston College Research Seminar, the 2008 Seminar Series at McGill
University, and the 2008 European Group of Organization
Studies Colloquium, Subtheme 20, “Against the Grain: Sets,
Setups, and Upsets in Creative Sectors.” F. G. Massa’s current affiliation is the College of Business, Loyola University
New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118. All remaining
errors are the responsibility of the authors.
Endnotes
1
Semiotics scholars identify three kinds of codes: social, artifact, and interpretive (Chandler 2007). Social codes capture
socially shared knowledge, values, and assumptions; thus, they
are similar to logics. Artifact codes, or textual codes in semiotic terms, refer to a variety of artifacts, not just written documents. Interpretive codes link social and artifact codes to
interpret and create meaning about the artifact in its social
context. We use the term artifact code because it more clearly
identifies that the code refers to an artifact’s content and form.
2
The Avery Index contains over 440,000 entries for over 700
American and international journals. In our data, English dominated (61% of texts), followed by French (13%) and German (10%). We hired a professional to translate non-English
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1542
articles. We used a Students’ T -test to compare translated
and untranslated texts and found no significant differences on
architects’ 30 most frequently used nouns and verbs.
3
During World War I (1916–1918), architects produced no
writings or buildings, so we began Period 2 in 1919.
References
Aalto, A. 1941. Research for reconstruction in Finland. J. Roy. Inst.
British Architects 48(3) 78–83.
Abbott, A. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division
of Expert Labor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Anonymous. 1935. The Royal Gold Medal: Presentation to Mr. W. M.
Dudok [Hon corresponding member]. J. Roy. Inst. British Architects 42 685–690.
Anonymous. 1960. Presentation of the Royal Gold Medal for 1960
to Professor Pier Luigi Nervi. J. Roy. Inst. British Architects 67
229–232.
Ansell, C. K. 1997. Symbolic networks: The realignment of the
French working class, 1887–1894. Amer. J. Sociol. 103(2)
359–390.
Atkinson, P. 1985. Language, Structure and Reproduction: An
Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein. Methuen &
Co., London.
Berger, P. L., T. Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality:
A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor, New York.
Blau, J. R. 1984. Architects and Firms: A Sociological Perspective on
Architectural Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bowker, G. C., S. L. Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification
and Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Boyd, R. 1966. Kenzo Tange, an architect of the world. AIA J. 45(6)
82–89.
Boyle, B. M. 1977. Architectural practice in America, 1865–1965—
Ideal and reality. S. Kostof, ed. The Architect. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK, 309–344.
Brain, D. 1989. Discipline and style: The Ecole des Beaux-Arts and
the social production of an American architecture. Theory Soc.
18(6) 807–868.
Brand, S. 1995. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re
Built. Penguin Books, New York.
Carley, K. 1994. Extracting culture through textual analysis. Poetics
22(4) 291–312.
Carley, K. M. 1997. Extracting team mental models through textual
analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 18(S1) 533–538.
Cattani, G., S. Ferriani, G. Negro, F. Perretti. 2008. The structure
of consensus: Network ties, legitimation and exit rates of U.S.
feature film producer organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(1)
145–182.
Cerulo, K. A. 1993. Symbols and the world system: National anthems
and flags. Sociol. Forum 8(2) 243–271.
Chandler, D. 2007. Semiotics: The Basics, 2nd ed. Routledge, London.
Colyvas, J. A., W. W. Powell. 2006. Roads to institutionalization:
The remaking of boundaries between public and private science.
B. M. Staw, ed. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27.
Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 305–353.
Conrads, U. 1971. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture. Translated by M. Bullock. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[Orig. pub. 1964. Verlag Ullstein, Frankfurt, Berlin.]
Cumming, E., W. Kaplan. 1991. The Arts and Crafts Movement.
Thames & Hudson, London.
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Curtis, W. J. R. 2005. Modern Architecture Since 1900. Phaidon,
London.
Davis, G. F., D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, M. N. Zald, eds. 2005.
Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
de Saussure, F. 2008. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by
C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, A. Riedlinger. Translated by R. Harris.
Open Court, Chicago.
DiMaggio, P. 1987. Classification in art. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 52(4)
440–455.
Douglas, M. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse University Press,
Syracuse, NY.
Dudok, W. 1955. Acceptance address. J. Amer. Inst. Architects 24
51–60.
Dunn, M. B., C. Jones. 2010. Institutional logics and institutional
pluralism: The contestation of care and science logics in medical
education, 1967–2005. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(1) 114–149.
Emanuel, M., ed. 1980. Contemporary Architects, 1st ed. St. James
Press, New York.
Emanuel, M., ed. 1994. Contemporary Architects, 3rd ed. St. James
Press, New York.
Erickson, M. A., J. K. Kruschke. 1998. Rules and exemplars in category learning. J. Experiment. Psych. General 127(2) 107–140.
Etzion, D., F. Ferraro. 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organ. Sci. 21(5) 1092–1107.
Freeman, E. A. 1892. Choice in architectural styles. Architectural
Record 1(4) 391–400.
Friedland, R. 2001. Religious nationalism and the problem of collective representation. Annual Rev. Sociol. 27 125–152.
Friedland, R., R. R. Alford. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. W. W. Powell,
P. J. DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 232–263.
Friedland, R., J. Mohr. 2004. The cultural turn in American sociology. R. Friedland, J. Mohr, eds. Matters of Culture: Cultural
Sociology in Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 1–69.
Gavetti, G., D. A. Levinthal, J. W. Rivkin. 2005. Strategy making
in novel and complex worlds: The power of analogy. Strategic
Management J. 26(8) 691–712.
Greenwood, R., R. Suddaby, C. R. Hinings. 2002. Theorizing change:
The role of professional associations in the transformation of
institutionalized fields. Acad. Management J. 45(1) 58–80.
Greenwood, R., M. Raynard, F. Kodeih, E. R. Micelotta, M.
Lounsbury. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational
responses. Acad. Management Ann. 5(1) 317–371.
Gropius, W. 1910/1961. Gropius at twenty-six: Gropius’ talk at AEG
Electricity Company. March 1910. Reprint, Architectural Rev.
130(July) 49–51.
Gropius, W. 1931. The small house of today. Architectural Forum 54
266–278.
Gropius, W. 1934. The formal and technical problems of modern
architecture and planning. J. Roy. Inst. British Architects 41
679–694.
Gropius, W. 1946. Living architecture or international style? Design
47(8) 10, 11, 23, 26.
Gropius, W. 1967. China factory, Selb, Bavaria. Building 213(October) 103–106.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
1543
Guillén, M. F. 2006. The Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical2 Scientific Management and the Rise of Modernist Architecture.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Lounsbury, M. 2007. A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Acad.
Management J. 50(2) 289–307.
Hamlin, A. D. F. 1891. The difficulties of modern architecture.
Architectural Record 1 137–150.
Lounsbury, M., E. T. Crumley. 2007. New practice creation: An
institutional perspective on innovation. Organ. Stud. 28(7)
993–1012.
Hamlin, A. D. F. 1892. The battle for styles. Architectural Record 1
265–275.
Hitchcock, H.-R., Jr. 1942. In the Nature of Materials: The Buildings
of Frank Lloyd Wright, 1887–1941. Da Capo Press, New York.
Hitchcock, H.-R., P. Johnson. 1995. The International Style. W. W.
Norton & Company, New York. [Orig. pub. 1932 as The International Style: Architecture Since 1922.]
Lounsbury, M., H. Rao. 2004. Sources of durability and change in
market classifications: A study of the reconstitution of product
categories in the American mutual fund industry, 1944–1985.
Soc. Forces 82(3) 969–999.
Lutyens, E. 1931. What I think of modern architecture. Country Life
69 775–777.
Hsu, G. 2006a. Evaluative schemas and the attention of critics in the
US film industry. Indust. Corporate Change 15(3) 467–496.
Lutyens, E. 1932. Tradition speaks. Architectural Rev. 72(October)
163–164.
Hsu, G. 2006b. Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences’
reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Admin.
Sci. Quart. 51(3) 420–450.
Malt, B. C., S. A. Sloman. 2007. Category essence or essentially
pragmatic? Creator’s intention in naming and what’s really what.
Cognition 105(3) 615–648.
Hsu, G., M. T. Hannan. 2005. Identities, genres, and organizational
form. Organ. Sci. 16(5) 474–490.
Matthews, K. 2004. The Great Buildings Collection. CD-ROM. Artifice Inc., Eugene, OR. http://www.greatbuildings.com/.
Johnson, P. 1949. The frontiersman. Architectural Rev. 106 105–110.
McKim, C. 1902. The annual address of the president of the American
Institute of Architects. Amer. Architect Building News 78 91.
Jones, C. 2010. Finding a place in history: Symbolic and social
networks in creative careers and collective memory. J. Organ.
Behav. 31(5) 726–748.
Jones, C., R. Livne-Tarandach. 2008. Designing a frame: Rhetorical
strategies of architects. J. Organ. Behav. 29(8) 1075–1099.
Kahn, L. 1971. The room, the street and human agreement. AIA J.
(September) 33–34.
Kennedy, M. T. 2008. Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality.
Amer. Sociol. Rev. 73(2) 270–295.
Khaire, M., R. D. Wadhwani. 2010. Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category—
Modern Indian art. Acad. Management J. 53(6) 1281–1304.
Kim, T.-Y., D. Shin, H. Oh, Y.-C. Jeong. 2007. Inside the iron
cage: Organizational political dynamics in presidential selection
systems in Korean universities, 1985–2002. Admin. Sci. Quart.
52(2) 286–323.
King, B. G, E. S. Clemens, M. Fry. 2011. Identity realization
and organizational forms: Differentiation and consolidation of
identities among Arizona’s charter schools. Organ. Sci. 22(3)
554–572.
Kraatz, M. S., E. S. Block. 2008. Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, R. Suddaby, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Sage, London, 243–275.
Larson, M. S. 1993. Behind the Postmodern Facade: Architectural
Change in Late Twentieth-Century America. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Le Corbusier. 1935. La Ville Radieuse. Amer. Architect 147(November) 16–18.
Le Corbusier. 1944. La maison des Hommes. Formes et Coloeurs 6(4)
48–56.
Le Corbusier. 1947. Architecture and urbanism. Progressive Architecture 41(February) 67–68.
Lena, J. C., R. A. Peterson. 2008. Classification as culture: Types and
trajectories of music genres. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 73(5) 697–718.
Lichtenstein, S. R. 1990. Editing architecture: Architectural record
and the growth of modern architecture, 1928–1938. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Mies van der Rohe, L. 1923. Office building. G 1(July) 3. [Reprint
1991. F. Neumeyer, ed. The Artless Word: Mies van der Rohe
on the Building Art. Translated by M. Jarzombek. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.]
Mies van der Rohe, L. 1946. A tribute to Frank Lloyd Wright. College
Art J. 6(1) 41–42.
Mohr, J. W. 1998. Measuring meaning structures. Annual Rev. Sociol.
24 345–370.
Mohr, J. W. 2000. Introduction: Structures, institutions, and cultural
analysis. Poetics 27(2–3) 57–68.
Mohr, J. W., V. Duquenne. 1997. The duality of culture and practice: Poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. Theory Soc.
26(2/3) 305–356.
Morgan, A. L., C. Naylor, eds. 1987. Contemporary Architects,
2nd ed. St. James Press, New York.
Morrison, H. 1935. Louis Sullivan: Prophet of Modern Architecture.
W. W. Norton & Company, New York.
Negro, G., M. T. Hannan, H. Rao. 2011. Category reinterpretation
and defection: Modernism and tradition in Italian winemaking.
Organ. Sci. 22(6) 1449–1463.
Negro, G., Ö. Koçak, G. Hsu. 2010. Research on categories in the
sociology of organizations. G. Hsu, Ö. Koçak, G. Negro, eds.
Categories in Markets: Origins and Evolution. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 31. Emerald Group Publishing,
Bingley, UK, 3–35.
Nervi, P. L. 1956. On relations between construction processes and
architecture. Student publication of the School of Design, Vol. 6.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, 2–8.
Nigam, A., W. Ocasio. 2010. Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics: An inductive analysis
of the effects of public attention to Clinton’s health care reform
initiative. Organ. Sci. 21(4) 823–841.
Noffsinger, J. P. 1955. The Influence of the École des Beaux-Arts
on the Architects of the United States. Catholic University of
America Press, Washington, DC.
Östberg, R. 1934. New lines of development. Architectural Forum 61
33–36.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
1544
Pontikes, E. 2010. Fitting in or starting new? Invention, ambiguity,
and category emergence in the software industry. Working paper,
Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Popping, R. 2000. Computer-Assisted Text Analysis. Sage, London.
Porac, J. F., J. A. Rosa, J. Spanjol, M. S. Saxon. 2001. America’s family vehicle: Path creation in the U.S. minivan market. R. Garud, P. Karnoe, eds. Path Dependence and Creation.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 213–242.
Powell, W. W., J. A. Colyvas. 2008. Microfoundations of institutional theory. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, R. Suddaby,
eds. The Sage Handbook of Institutional Theory. Sage, London,
276–298.
Rao, H., P. Monin, R. Durand. 2003. Institutional change in Toque
Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French
gastronomy. Amer. J. Sociol. 108(4) 795–843.
Rao, H., P. Monin, R. Durand. 2005. Border crossing: Bricolage
and the erosion of categorical boundaries in French gastronomy.
Amer. Sociol. Rev. 70(6) 968–991.
Rosa, J. A., J. F. Porac, J. Runser-Spanjol, M. S. Saxon. 1999.
Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. J. Marketing
63(Special issue) 64–77.
Rosch, E., C. B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblance: Studies in the
internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psych. 7(4) 573–605.
Ruef, M., K. Patterson. 2009. Credit and classification: The impact of
industry boundaries in 19th century America. Admin. Sci. Quart.
54(3) 486–520.
Saarinen, E. 1932. The principles of modern architecture: An address
by Eliel Saarinen to the 64th Convention of the American Institute of Architects. J. Roy. Inst. British Architects 23(January)
235–239.
Schneiberg, M., E. S. Clemens. 2006. The typical tools for the job:
Research strategies in institutional analysis. Sociol. Theory 24(3)
195–227.
Schwartz, F. J. 1996. The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture Before the First World War. Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT.
Scrivano, P. 2004. Defining the profession of architect in the twentieth
century: France, Italy and the United States. Contemporary Eur.
Hist. 13(3) 345–356.
Scully, V. 1954. Wright vs the international style. ARTNews 53 32–35,
64–66.
Scully, V., Jr. 1962. Louis I. Kahn. George Braziller, New York.
Scully, V. 1974. Modern Architecture: The Architecture of Democracy, 7th ed. George Braziller, New York.
Sewell, W. H. 1996. Historical events as transformations of structures:
Inventing revolution at the Bastille. Theory Soc. 25(6) 841–881.
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Sturgis, R. 1908. The Larkin Building in Buffalo. Architectural
Record 23(4) 311–322.
Suddaby, R., R. Greenwood. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy.
Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(1) 35–67.
Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. Amer.
Sociol. Rev. 51(2) 273–286.
Tange, K. 1956. Creation in present-day architecture and the Japanese
architectural tradition. Shinkentiku 31 25–33.
Tange, K. 1961. A plan for Tokyo. Japan Architect 35(April) 8–48.
Thornton, P. H. 2002. The rise of the corporation in a craft industry:
Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Acad. Management J. 45(1) 81–101.
Thornton, P. H., W. Ocasio. 2008. Institutional logics. R. Greenwood,
C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, R. Suddaby, eds. The Sage Handbook of
Organizational Institutionalism. Sage, London, 99–129.
Thornton, P. H., C. Jones, K. Kury. 2005. Institutional logics and institutional change in organizations: Transformations in accounting, architecture and publishing. C. Jones, P. H. Thornton, eds.
Transformation in Cultural Industries. Research in the Sociology
of Organizations, Vol. 23. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley,
UK, 127–172.
Ventresca, M. J., J. W. Mohr. 2002. Archival research methods.
J. A. C. Baum, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations.
Blackwell, London, 805–828.
Viollet-le-Duc, E. E. 2009. Lectures on Architecture: In Two Volumes.
Dover, New York. [Orig. published in 1877 and 1881. Translated
by B. Bucknall. Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington,
London.]
Weber, K., K. L. Heinze, M. DeSoucey. 2008. Forage for thought:
Mobilizing codes in the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy
products. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(3) 529–567.
Whitford, F. 1984. Bauhaus. Thames & Hudson, London.
Wilson, R. G. 1984. The AIA Gold Medal. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wilton-Ely, J. 1977. The rise of the professional architect in England.
S. Kostof, ed. The Architect: Chapters in the History of the
Profession. Oxford University Press, New York, 180–208.
Wölfflin, H. 1950. Principles of Art History: The Problem of the
Development of Style in Later Art, 7th ed. Translated by M. D.
Hottinger. Dover, New York.
Woods, M. N. 1999. From Craft to Profession: The Practice of Architecture in Nineteenth-Century America. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Wright, F. L. 1914. In the cause of architecture. (Second paper.) Architectural Record 35(5) 405–413.
Wright, F. L. 1928. In the cause of architecture VIII: Sheet metal and
a modern instance. Architectural Record 64(October) 334–342.
Shenhav, Y. 1995. From chaos to systems: The engineering foundations of organization theory, 1879–1932. Admin. Sci. Quart.
40(4) 557–585.
Wright, F. L. 1931. To the young architect in America. Architects’ J.
74(July) 48–50.
Shrum, W. 1991. Critics and publics: Cultural mediation in highbrow
and popular performing arts. Amer. J. Sociol. 97(2) 347–375.
Wright, F. L. 1939. An organic architecture, Mr. Lloyd Wright’s firstfourth “Watson” lecture. Builder 156 856, 907–909, 953–954.
Simmel, G. 1950. The Sociology of George Simmel. Edited and translated by K. H. Wolff. Free Press, New York.
Wright, F. L. 1950. Addresses the students of the Architectural Association. Architectural Design 20(8) 219, 232.
Stephens, S. 2002. Tenacious beauty: The shifting role of aesthetic
criteria in architectural criticism, 1850–1915. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Wright, F. L. 1952. Organic architecture looks at modern architecture.
Architectural Record 111 148–154.
Strang, D., J. W. Meyer. 1993. Institutional conditions for diffusion.
Theory Soc. 22(4) 487–511.
Wright, F. L. 1953. Organic architecture: Language of organic architecture. The Future of Architecutre. Horizon Press, New York,
319–325.
Jones et al.: Rebels with a Cause: Formation of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture”
Organization Science 23(6), pp. 1523–1545, © 2012 INFORMS
Zald, M. N. 2008. Epilogue: Social movements and political sociology
in the analysis of organizations and markets. Admin. Sci. Quart.
53(3) 568–574.
Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5)
1398–1438.
Zuckerman, E. W., T.-Y. Kim, K. Ukanawa, J. von Rittman. 2003.
Robust identities or nonentities? Typecasting in the feature-film
labor market. Amer. J. Sociol. 108(5) 1018–1074.
Candace Jones is an associate professor in the Management and Organization Department at Boston College. She
received her Ph.D. from the University of Utah. Her research
focuses on institutional logics, social and symbolic networks,
and cultural understandings in professions and creative industries with a focus on language, vocabularies, and materiality.
She is currently coediting the Oxford Handbook of Creative
Industries and is the incoming chair of the Organization and
Management Theory Division, Academy of Management.
Massimo Maoret is a doctoral candidate in organization
studies at Boston College. His research examines how the
1545
dynamics of social networks impact success at multiple levels
of analysis, including team and organizational performance,
organizational free riding, professionals’ institutional recognition, and the institutionalization of new categories. He recently
coauthored the chapter “Toward a Projects-as-Events Perspective” in Advances in Strategic Management: Project-Based
Organizing.
Felipe G. Massa is an assistant professor of management
and a member of the faculty at the College of Business at
Loyola University New Orleans. His research is focused on
the microfoundations of institutional change as well as the
formation of new entities, practices, and ideas. In particular,
he investigates the efforts of social actors who collectively
engage in activities that violate institutional boundaries and
span social worlds in the creative industries and online spaces.
Silviya Svejenova is a professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at ESADE Business School. She received her Ph.D.
from IESE Business School. Her research interests include the
emergence of novelty; the creation and transformation of business models, with particular emphasis on creative industries;
and executive careers and action.