The+Strong+Program+in+Cultural+Theory+Elements+of+a+Structural+Hermeneutics


 * =Title:         **“The Strong Program in Cultural Theory: Elements of a Structural Hermeneutics.” **= ||   ||
 * =Author:         **Jeffrey Alexander and Philip Smith **= ||   ||
 * =Date of Publication: ???= ||  ||
 * =Summary By: Ela Rossmiller= ||  ||
 * =Summary:=

1. Critique of past theorists a. Those who explain culture in structural terms (e.g. capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, anomie, egoism, etc.) exhibit a “numbness toward meaning” (p. 138). Still, he throws a bone to Weber, Durkheim, and Marx. b. Parsonian functionalism: Explains actions in terms of values, but doesn’t explain values. c. Moore, Wright-Mills, and Tilly: view culture as ideologies, group processes, and networks when they should be viewing culture as text. (p. 139) d. Blumer, Goffman, Garfinkel: ignore symbolic interaction resulting in norms/ moral codes (p. 140) e. Barthes, Lévi-Strausse, Foucault: Culture-is-discourse theory is too abstract, ignores human agency, and doesn’t make causal arguments. (p. 140) f. The Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies, a.k.a. The Birmingham School: Doesn’t deal with the issue of cultural autonomy, explains on-the-ground behavior in terms of pie-in-the-sky abstractions like Capitalism with a capital “C.” g. Bourdieu: His methods are great, but he still treats culture as a dependent variable rather than as an independent one. Views culture as a neutral resource which people use, but not a driver of human behavior. h. Foucault:Fusion of power/knowledge and discourse/social structure allows no possibility to analyze the //independent// effects of culture. (p. 142) i. Theories on the production and reception of culture: It’s good that it presents a causal link between culture and social structure, but it’s too reductionist. Culture is explained away in terms of institutions, elites, and ideologies, and human desires for profit, power, prestige, and control (p. 142). Still doesn’t accept the autonomy of culture. 2. The Strong Program in Cultural Theory (drum roll here . . . ) (p. 143 – 147) a. Thick Description: Analyzes culture as a hermeneutic text using Geertzian “thick description” to get at meanings of social processes. b. Cultural Autonomy: Views culture as autonomous, an “independent variable.” c. Causal specificity: Describes precise mechanisms by which culture has an effect. d. Attempts to theorize and explain, departing from Geertz’ insistance that “the local explains the local” (p. 144). e. Structural Hermeneutics i. Culture is a text of signs and symbols //that follow certain patterns//. (p. 145) ii. Culture consists of models, motifs, and metatexts that explain the particular but also allow cross-case comparison. 3. This program is supported by several factors: a. The American tradition of empiricism and pragmatism b. Structuralist theories of sign-systems and binary opposition. c. Symbolic interactionism (e.g. Geertz) d. Literary theory
 * Central Question:** How should we think of culture?
 * Central Problem:** Cultural sociology envisions culture as an object internal to people which influences behavior and institutions (an “independent variable”). In contrast, the sociology of culture views culture as the natural result of a range of other things, which are external to it and which can explain it (a “dependent variable”). What gives? Which is it?
 * Main Point:** Alexander and Smith side with the view of cultural sociologists and argue that a strong program in cultural theory depends on “cultural autonomy,” i.e.the idea that culture is exogenous much like language is, and that it is an “independent variable” influencing societies. He views Geertzian “thick description” as the best way to get at the nature of this object.
 * Compare/Contrast to:** Roland Barthes, Emile Durkheim, Michel Foucault, Clifford Geertz, Inglehart and Welzel, Jackman and Miller, Claude Lévi-Strausse, Karl Marx, John Ogbu, Pierre Bourdieu, Paul Ricoeur, Richard Rorty, Max Weber, Marshall Sahlins.
 * Summary:** Alexander and Smith first critique past cultural theorists, all who offered merely a weak program of cultural theory, and then go on to propose their strong program of cultural theory.

“Because meanings are arbitrary and are generated from within they sign system, they enjoy a certain autonomy from social determination, just as the language of a country cannot be predicted from the knowledge that it is capitalist or socialist, industrial or agrarian. Culture now becomes a structure as objective as any more material social fact.” (p. 146) ||  ||
 * Key Quote:**
 * =Discussion points:=

- 1. The view that culture are autonomous, exogenous objects doesn’t explain why cultures change over time.
 * Strengths/Weaknesses/Comments/Questions:**

- 2. The article seems preoccupied with answering the question, “In which direction does the causal arrow point?” Do we really have to choose? Can’t culture both influence behaviors and institutions, and also be influenced by them? The problem with ”autonomous cultures” is that they shape and mold, but are not themselves shaped and molded.

- 3. Are the problems he sees in earlier theories really problems?

- 4. Would Geertz use the term “cultural autonomy” If so, what would he mean by it?

- 5. The metaphors are significant. Alexander and Smith compare culture to both language and text, but they can’t have it both ways. Language is form but not content; text is all about the content. Culture-as-language may be considered an independent variable, but culture-as-text is surely a dependent variable. ||  || = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =