A Methodological Framework For The Sociology of Culture

A Methodological Framework for the Sociology of Culture
Author(s): Wendy Griswold

Source: Sociological Methodology, Vol. 17 (1987), pp. 1-35
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/271027 .
Accessed: 18/01/2015 09:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociological Methodology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A METHODOLOGICAL
FRAMEWORK FOR THE
SOCIOLOGY OF CULTURE
Griswold
Wendy
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Drawing on analytictechniquesfromthehumanities and socialsciences,I

proposea framework for researchin thesociology of culturethatis both
and sensitive
sczentific ofculturaldata. In
totheparticularcharacteristics
this paper, I maintainthat to be completeand persuasive,cultural
analysis must include(1) the intentions of creativeagents, (2) the
receptionofculturalobjectsovertimeand space, (3) thecomprehension of
culturalobjectsin termsof intrinsicand heuristic genres,and (4) the
explanationofthecharacteristicsofobjectswithreference tothesocialand
For their suggestionson this essay, I thank Misty Bastian, Mabel Berezin,
JeffreyBrooks, Paul DiMaggio, John Hall, John Padgett, Bernice Pescosolido,
Katheryn Ragsdale, Ann Swidler, Harrison White, Robert Wuthnow, members of
the Culture and Society Workshop at the Universityof Chicago, and two anony-
mous readers for SociologicalMethodology.

2 WENDY GRISWOLD
culturalexperiencesof social groupsand categories.Afterdeveloping a

framework based on thesefourkeyelements,I suggestthatthevalidity
criteriaof parsimony,plenitude,and amplitudeshouldbe applied to
competingexplanationsof culturalphenomena.The usefulnessof the
framework and validitycriteriais demonstrated through
theirapplication
to a puzzle regardingthe changesa Westernpopularfictiongenre
underwent whenit was reproduced in Nigeria.
An assumed gap betweenthe "two cultures"of the sciencesand

the humanitieshas handicapped the sociologyof culture. The two
research strategiesthat reproduce this dichotomy-the institutional
and the interpretive-are rarely broughtinto articulationwith one
another. This division of labor, between those who offersubtle yet
ungeneralizableinterpretations of culturalphenomenaand thosewho
reduce culturalphenomenato univocal indicatorsof social institutions,
has created a social science of culture that is either inattentiveto
science or insensitiveto culture.Thus, the termsociologyof culture,so far
as it has been realized empirically,is an oxymoron.
On the one hand, interpretiveapproaches to culture,which
replicate traditionalhumanitiesproceduresin theirfocus on cultural
objects in all theircomplexityand richnessof nuance, producestriking
insightsinto culturalphenomena,but theydo not encouragegeneral-
ization or testing.In Marxian interpretations, forexample, generaliza-
tion is unnecessarybecause relationsof social power,ultimatelybased
on economic relationsand mediated throughhegemonicinstitutions,
are assumed to generate the socioculturaldialectic. The goal is to
figureout the mutual constructionof class interestsand ideological
expressionsthroughsocial and cultural practice. In neofunctionalist
interpretations, whichprivilegeneitherside of thesocioculturalinterac-
tion, generalizationis unhelpfulbecause of the variabilityof human
experience,and perhaps even undesirablebecause "there are enough
general principles in the world already" (Geertz 1983, p. 5). The
neofunctionalist's goal is to dissectparticularsymbolicsystemsoperat-
ing under the most abstractof social laws. Like sliversof dialectical
moments,such bitsof local knowledgeare rathermoretastythan they
are scientificallynutritious.
On the otherhand, institutionalapproaches,which emphasize
collectiveaction and theorganizationof social resourcesin the produc-
tion of symbolicgoods, initiallyseem more satisfyinginsofaras they

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE SOCIOLOGY OF CULTURE 3
lead fromsociologicalstrongsuitsand operate at a level somewherein
betweenthe laws of thesocial systemand the idiosyncracies of concrete
cases. They make causal claims that can be testedand generalizedto
othercultural data; hence,theyseem more scientific.But theirsis the
satisfactionof modestaspirations;theymake littleattemptto investi-
gate the multiple,oftenambiguous characteristics of cultural objects
per se. These institutionalstudies have different objectives,and for
them, culture is an index of some social reality. Thus, they treat
cultural objects as if theywere the same as otherobjectsof production
and consumption,except possibly for their aura and their related
abilityto demarcatestatuspositions(e.g. Bourdieu 1984). An approach
to culture that is uninterested in meaning,or in how culturalobjects
differfromporkbellies,seems destinedto continueto play a marginal
role in cultural,thoughperhapsnot social, analysis.
Is it possible to respect,to respondto, and to explain or use in
explanation the particular characteristicsof cultural data-shared
significanceembodied in form-while retainingthe persuasivetech-
niques of social science?Cultural analyses that do more than simply
describe how culturalproductionand consumptionare organized are
typically directed toward one of two ends. Either analysts try to
account for culturalobjectsthemselves,as in researchthat asks why a
painting,a shared belief,a scrap of religiousdoctrine,or a television
show tookthe formthatit did, or theytryto make inferences about the
natureof a societyfromthe natureof itsculturalobjects.Both typesof
investigationrequire the analyst to make hypotheticalinterpretations
about the meaning of the culturalitemsin question.1In eithercase, it
' Robert Wuthnow(forthcoming) arguesthat since the subjectiveis ulti-

matelyinaccessibleto sociologists,
theywouldbe wiseto go "beyondtheproblem
of meaning"and concentrate on thesynchronic mappingof culturalsystems, i.e.,
on the relationsamongsymbols.Using observablediscourseabout meaningsthat
can be foundin a text,surveyresponses, or otherbehavioralresidues,sociologists
should examinerelationships amongthe elementsof the particulardiscourseand
the relationshipamong theseand otherculturalcomponentsfromothercontem-
poraneousdiscourses.Throughsuch examinations, one can develop a matrixof
symbolicelements,therebyarrivingat the culturalconfigurations and categories
operativein a particulartimeand place throughwhichall experienceis mediated.
Such mappingis worthwhile, but Wuthnow'sdiscouragement regardingmeaning
may be prematureforthreereasons.First,meaningneed not be conceptualized
only at the individuallevel (Wuthnowis surelyrightthat sociologistsare ill
equipped to undertakethis) or only at the level of entiresocial orders (as
interpretiveand hegemonytheorieswouldhave it). Rather,it can be viewedas a

4 WENDY GRISWOLD
is temptingto reduce the culturaldata to a singlepertinentdimension

(the meaning) and show that thisdimensionis analogous to, depends
on, or contributesto a social phenomenon.Furthermore, in eithercase,
standardscientificdesiderataof validation,replication,and generaliza-
tion tend to seem irrelevant,if not impossible.
The time for an advance beyond this methodologicalimpasse
seems ripe: Institutionalboundariesbetweenthesocial sciencesand the
humanitiesare becomingblurred(Geertz 1983), and the fieldof the
sociology of culture is becoming more organized and self-aware.2
Encouraged by these trendsand drawingon methodsdeveloped for
sociology,cultural anthropology,art history,and literarycriticism,I
proposea bridgewhosefoundations, firmlyplantedon bothsidesof the
disciplinarygap, will supportmodes of analysisthat are at once more
firmand more supple than thosecurrentlyavailable. This paper will
attempt to show how the sociologyof culture can both subject its
cultural interpretations to the definitionalprecision and validation
criteriatypical of the social sciencesand be as sensitiveto the multi-
vocal complexityof culturaldata as art historyor theology.Only when
the insightsand findingsof sociologyof culturemeetthesetwomethod-
ological objectivescan the artificialgap betweenthe two culturesbe
closed and sound theoryconstruction become possible.
A culturalmethodologythatdoes not throwmeaningoverboard
in some sort of disciplinarytriagebeginsby focusingculturalanalysis
on the point at whichindividualsinteractwitha culturalobject. I use
the termcultural objectto referto sharedsignificanceembodiedin form,
i.e., to an expressionof social meaningsthat is tangibleor can be put
into words.3 Thus, a religiousdoctrine,a belief about the racial
propertyof specifiablesocialcategoriesand groups,whichare empirically accessi-

ble and comparable.Second,the mappingof a culturalsystemis fundamentally
just semioticelaboration;sooneror laterthesociologist willwantto drawconnec-
tionsto the social order.The thirdproblemis leakage: A lot of culturaldata gets
lostwhenone looksonlyforcommonalities This pricemay
acrosssymbolicsystems.
not need to be paid.
2 The new Sociologyof Culture sectionof the AmericanSociological
Associationis evidenceof this.
in analy-
of culturalobject,and itspragmaticspecification
3 This definition
sis,is somewhatnarrower thanTalcottParsons'suse oftheterm.Parsonsdefineda
culturalobject as any patternreproduciblein the actionof anotherperson(see
Alexander1983, pp. 40-41). A culturalobject and its partialmeaningmustbe
capable of being articulatedby an agent,eithera social actoror the analystof
social action;a patternto whichno particularmeaningcan be attachedwouldnot
be includedundermydefinition.

characteristicsof blacks,a sonnet,a hairstyle,and a quilt could all be
analyzed as culturalobjects; the analystmust designatejust what the
object in question is. The analysis centered on this interactionis
therebyorganizedby fouractions:intention, reception,comprehension,
and explanation. One dimensionof this typologyis definedby the
person performingthe action-the social agent or the analyst. The
otherdimensionis definedby the person'sattitudetowardthe cultural
object's meaning-constitutedin the object or embedded in the social
world. Thus, the social agent intendsand receives;the analystcompre-
hends and explains. Intentionand comprehensioninvolveunderstand-
ing the meaning of the cultural object as constitutedby the object
itself,internalto it, while receptionand explanation involve framing
the cultural object in relation to some larger, external systemof
meaning. Thus, the fouractionsdelineatedby crossingthe two dimen-
sions involve the agent and the analystin both the internalcharacter
and the externalconnectednessof the culturalobject.
This essay will discusseach of theseactionsin turn,startingwith
intention. Intention is the social agent's purpose in light of the con-
straintsimposed on him or her in the productionand social incorpora-
tion of culturalobjects.In my discussionof intention,I make extensive
use of the insightsofferedby art historianMichael Baxandall (1985) on
the reconstructionof creative agents' probable intentions.Reception,
which is considerednext,is the social agent's consumption,incorpora-
tion,or rejectionof culturalobjects.Diffusionovertimeand space adds
a particularlyinterestingcomplicationto receptionanalysis; I illus-
trate some of the pitfallsof temporaldiffusionby consideringE. P.
Thompson's (1966) argumentregardingMethodism'srole in the devel-
opment of working-classconsciousness.Comprehension is the analyst's
considerationof the internalstructures, patterns,and symboliccarrying
capacities of the culturalobjects.Genre is the key here,and I suggest
that the sociologicalanalysisof culturewould benefitfromincorporat-
ing the useful formulationsof genre offeredby literarycriticsE. D.
Hirsch (1967) and Adena Rosmarin(1985). Explanation is the analyst's
drawing of connectionsbetween comprehendedcultural objects and
the external social world,connectionsthat are mediated by reception
and intention.In my discussionof explanation,I begin by comparing
the analytic strategiesof sociologistof literatureLucien Goldmann
(1964, [1967] 1970) and culturalanthropologist CliffordGeertz(1983).
Using their common ground as a base, I proceed to assemble the
elements discussed into a general analytic frameworkfor cultural

6 WENDY GRISWOLD
Aftersetting
analysis. Finally, I turnto the criticalissue of validation.
out three validity criteriafor the sociology of culture-parsimony,
plenitude, and amplitude-I demonstratetheir application with an
extendedexample frommy own researchon popular Nigerianfiction.
INTENTION
Agents,particularlyproducingagents,have intentions.Central
to the analytic frameworkproposed here is some social agent, or
agents, interactingwith some cultural object. Sociologistsmust not
reduce intentionto an agent's individualpsychologyor consciousness,
but this does not mean that the concept is not analyticallyuseful.
While it is futileto try to get at the subjectivityof any particular
of any
individual, it is possibleto reconstructprobable intentionality
agent whose contextand behaviorare known.4The purposeof doing
so is to separate the individuallyidiosyncraticfromthe socially in-
fluencedby determiningthe degree to which intentionality has been
shaped by social elements,which may be shared, and the degree to
which culturaloutcomesare themselvesshaped by intentions.
The simplest and most typical approach to intentionis to
attemptto connecta culturalobject to its producingagent by asking,
for example, why Piero della Francesca organizedthe elementsof his
painting Baptismof Christin a certainway, or whetherJohn Donne
intendedhis poem "A Valediction:ForbiddingMourning"to be about
death or departure. Taking the formeras an illustrativeproblem,
Baxandall (1985) suggests that the tracing of plausible intention
amounts to the reconstruction of the "charge" and "brief" that an
artist held at the time of his creationof some particularwork. The
charge, a general and immediatepromptforan agent to act, may be
internallygeneratedor may come froman externaland quite explicit
source. Piero was commissionedto paint an altarpieceforthechurchof
Sansepolcro sometimearound 1450; thus,in Baxandall's terms,Piero's
client gave him the charge,"Altarpiece!"This chargeentaileda set of
social expectations(local wisdomabout altarpieces)and the particular
concernsof thosewealthyenough to commissionthem: An altarpiece
'
Argumentsforthe necessityof determiningintentionalityin historicaland
sociological texts can be found in Skinner (1969) and Jones (1977).

must representa recognizablescripturalpassage, it mustbe instructive,
it mustbe emotionallymovingand able to instillreverence,it mustbe
clear and memorable,and it must reflectthe taste and wealth of the
clientwho paid forit.
For any givencharge,the analystmay constructa brief,which
is a list of constraintsand influences,clusteredby theirsources and
types, that togetherconstitutethe artist'sprobable intention.Piero's
briefwould look somethinglike this:5
Immediate circumstances:(1) churchin Borgo Sansepolcro,Piero's
native town; (2) altar widthrequirestall, narrowpainting;(3) client
requires that all, or almost all, of paintingbe done by Piero, not his
students;(4) clientrequiresthat subjectbe Christ'sbaptism.
Piero's trainingand experience:(5) fifteenth-centuryItalian artists'
familiaritywith commensurazione (interdependentproportionand per-
spective); Piero's particularexpertise(he wrote treatiseson mathe-
maticsand perspective);(6) Piero'scontract,whichprobablystipulated
colors and amount of gilding to be used; (7) Piero's 1439 stay in
Florence,when Donatello was finishing the Cantoria of the Cathedral,
a monumentalworkof public art.
Local conditions:(8) communityexpectationsregardingthe di-
dactic functionof altarpieces; (9) familiarityof learned membersof
communitywith biblical narrativeof Christ'sbaptism (Matthew 3);
(10) shared assumptionsregardingthe mystery and cosmicsignificance
of Christ'sbaptism as a historicalevent.
Physicalmediaand constraints: (11) workingon two-dimensional
plane, using paint and gilding; (12) picture had to be organized
verticallybecause of tall, narrow shape of central panel of the al-
tarpiece imposed by small size of the altar.
Aestheticconditions:
(13) Piero's normalemploymentof rose color
to denote importance;(14) Piero's normal representation of angels
statuesque,undifferentiated, no off-shoulder garments,no wreaths;(15)
conventional representationsof angels in Renaissance paintings of
5 The actual contractbetweenPiero and his clientfor the Baptismno

longer exists,but a 1445 contractfor one of his similar commissionsdoes.
Baxandall does notsetout thebriefas a numericallistin hischapteron Piero,so I
have followedthe formathe used in an earlierchapter(see pp. 26-32). I have
constructedthe briefonlyas it relatesto one strandof Baxandall's analysis,that
havingto do withthespatialarrangement ofthepictorialelements;theentirebrief
would be considerablylonger.

8 WENDY GRISWOLD
Christ'sbaptism,even thoughnot foundin biblical account; (16) other

conventionsof Renaissancereligiouspainting.
Such a briefhas severalusefulfeatures:It includesconstraints
fromthe narrow,institutional marketand fromthe broader,cultural
marketof ideas; it incorporateselementsfromthe agent's biography,
including informationon otherartiststo whom he responded;and it
draws on the mentalitiesof the artist'ssocial group and the groupsto
which he had to appeal.
Baxandall's purpose in constructing a briefis to solve puzzles
associated with the art object in question.For example, longstanding
puzzles in the BaptismofChristinclude(a) the prominenceof the three
very differentangels in the left foreground,(b) the removal of the
spectators,some dressedin oddly Byzantinecostumes,into the right
background,(c) the change in the riveraround Christ'sfeet(the water
behind Him is reflective, but the waterbelow Him is transparent),and
(d) the remarkableresemblanceof the landscape to the regionaround
Sansepolcro. Afterseducing his readers with an iconographicalex-
planation based on symbolismof the doctrineof the Three Baptisms,
Baxandall offersa far simplerproblem-solving approach-the prob-
lems having been set by the brief.Given his need to tell the scriptural
story(items4, 8, and 9 in our brief)on a tall, narrowplane (2, 11, 12),
and given his expertisein commensurazione (5), Piero chose a vertical
organizationin whichthe narrativemovesforwardin space as it moves
ahead in time.Accordingto thisreading,the oddly dressedmen in the
background are the Phariseesand Sadduces mentionedin Matthew.
The threeangels are, in separateactions,cueingthe observerto attend
withdevotionto thecentralaction(8, 10). The strangedrape one angel
seems to be wearingis in factChrist'scloak, indicatedby itsrose color
(3, 13). The unusual wreaths,off-shoulder garments,and differentiated
attitudesof the angels were drawn fromPiero's studyof Donatello's
dancing angels (3, 7, 14, 15). The water below Christ'sfeetbecomes
transparentbecause theoriginalpaintinghad a showerof gold coming
fromGod, a divinespotlightthatilluminatedthewateraround Christ's
feet; tracesof the originalgildingare stillvisiblein a fewspots(6, 11).
The localization of the storybespeaks the need to communicatethe
scripturalmessage directlyand intimatelyto the residentsof Sanse-
polcro (1, 4, 8, 10); the use of such localizingtechniquesis a common
device in Renaissance religiouspainting(16). Baxandall emphasizes
the efficiency and parsimonyof such an "iconographicallyminimalist"

reading of the painting:There are no hiddenmeanings,just a painter's
intentionalsolutionsto some problemssetby hischargeand brief.Such
a reading does not bar more elaborate iconographicalanalysis-cult-
ural worksdo contain complex symbolicmatterafterall-but corre-
sponds to the scientificsense that simpler explanations are to be
preferredover complexones because of theirgreatergeneralizability.
Notice that intention,representedby the agent's briefand the
relationshipof that briefto the culturaloutcome,is discoverednot by
gettinginside the agent's head-this naive reductionismis repudiated
by those who lay the greatestemphasis on intentionality-but by
constructingprobabilitiesto answer some questions about cultural
objects. E. D. Hirsch (1967), a literarycriticwho has giventhe fullest
account of such probabilisticprocedures,poses this problem: How
might one decide whetherJohn Donne, in his poem "A Valediction:
ForbiddingMourning,"intendedthe readerto understandthe loversas
being parted by death or by distance?The internalevidence of the
poem supportseitherreading;therefore, thecriticmustlook externally.
An examination of how the word valediction was usually used in the
early seventeenthcentury,how Donne used the word in otherpoetry,
what Donne's circumstances were at the timeof writingthe poem, and
what readingmakesthebestuse of the "compass" metaphorwithinthe
poem leads to the strongprobability(which can almost never be a
certaintyfor a longstandingcultural puzzle, unless entirelynew evi-
dence should appear) that Donne intendedhis "Valediction" to refer
to departure,not to death.
Nor is intentionto be confusedwithconsequences.6A cultural
object may fail to realize the intentionsof its creative agent in two
ways: Eitherthe agentmay be unable to formulatethe objectin accord
with his intentions,or the object may not "work" as intendedon its
recipientsbecause of an inappropriatesetting,misunderstandings, in-
terpretationsat odds withthe agent'sown, and similarcommunicative
infelicities.If Piero had been unable to obtain gold, he would have
failed to carry out his intentionof glorifying Christwith a heavenly
spotlight;when the gildingwore off,his intentionof indicatingsacred-
ness was no longerrealized because of a materialfailure.His original
6 In thisrespect,as in
others,parallelsbetweenthe presentdiscussionof
intentionand speech-acttheorywillbe noticed.The culturalobjectis likeAustin's

10 WENDY GRISWOLD
intentions,as constructedby the analyst, are not altered by the

subsequentreceptionof his work.
RECEPTION
As in the Donne example,a focuson intentionusually involves

the question,What made a culturalobject the way it is, i.e., whydid a
social agent involvedin its productiongive it itsparticularcharacteris-
tics,which the analysthas specifiedin termsof structures, symbols,or
patterns?A differenttype of question (or a differentphase of the
analysis) asks, How is the cultural object received?Varieties of this
type of question might be concerned with the object's differential
impact among different social categoriesor groups,its influence,its
popularity,its meaning for those who appropriate it. For all such
questions,the social agent is the receiver.(Of course,a receivermay
also be a producer in a differentagent/object interaction.Piero
"received" Donatello's angels and incorporatedthem into his own
intentionalbriefforthe Baptism.)Hans RobertJauss(1982, pp. 20-45)
has describedliteraryreceptionas a readersituatinga textagainst his
"horizon of expectations,"a horizonbased on his social and cultural
experiences.For the analystattemptingto reconstruct such a horizon,
Jauss offersseven suggestions(all of which may be extendedbeyond
Jauss's specificallyliteraryconcerns):(1) take the past reader'spointof
view; (2) understandthe historyof the genreand the literaryframeof
referenceat the timeof thework'sappearance (the initialhorizon);(3)
examine the effectof the workon its audiences; (4) findthe question
that the work originallyaddressed;(5) locate the workdiachronically
by understandingits historicalpositionin literaryhistory;(6) locate it
synchronicallyby understandingthe systemof contemporaryliterary
worksat its historicalmoment;and (7) relateliteraryhistoryto general
historyby showing, among other things,how literatureaffectsits
readers' social horizon of expectations.The substitutionof artistfor
(1962) performative speech act: Its very existence is supposed to performsome

action. Intention is like elocution: The cultural object, like the speech act, is
designed to have some force and is directed toward a certain objective, although
the intended objective in both cases may not be achieved. Moreover, cultural
objects are often intended to work like indirectspeech acts, that is, by implication,
given a certain context and presupposing that the recipient possesses a certain
knowledge (Searle 1975).

(implied) readerin at least the firstsix of the above thesesillustratesthe

similaritiesbetween Baxandall's and Jauss's programs; the seventh
(and its reverse) is the particular concern of both Marxist literary
criticsand sociologists.Thus, the receiver'shorizonand the producer's
brief are analogous constructs;they are ways by which the analyst
makes sense of the interactionbetweenthesocial agent and thecultural
object. The construction of a receptivehorizon,like the construction of
a brief,is an exercisein probability.
There are at least fivetypesof reception,whichare relatedbut
not congruent. These are interpretation(the meaning-construction
produced by any particularagent or group of agents),marketsuccess
(popularity,indicatedby commercialsuccess,by numberof converts,
or by some othermeasureof immediateesteemaccorded to a cultural
object), impact on fields of cultural reference(a cultural object's
influenceon the framingof othercultural objects), canonization(the
acceptance of a culturalobject by that elite group of specialistswho
may legitimatelytalk about value), and endurance(the persistenceof a
cultural object over time at eitherthe elite or popular level). These
formsare interactive,but theirmutualrelationsare neitherobviousnor
inevitable. Art historianFrancis Haskell (1976) offersone especially
convoluted example: Early Italian paintingenjoyed littlepopularity
among English collectorsin the eighteenthand early nineteenthcentu-
ries,but afterthe Napoleonic Wars, Englishartists,returningto Italy,
rediscoveredmany of the "gothic" Italians like Giotto.Their champi-
oning triggereda revivalof interestamong collectorsin the 1830s and
1840s. But in 1850, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood-a group of
artistswho, thoughknowingratherlittleabout early Italian painting,
felt Raphael and the Renaissance masters had been overrated-
alarmed conventionalthinkersand, as a consequence,depressedthe
market for early Italian paintings.The Pre-Raphaelitescloaked their
own artisticmanifestosin an air of mysterioussignificance.Victorian
public indignationtowardthisschool,whose memberswere suspected
of being papists, blasphemers,and imposters,was projectedback on
the early Italians ("the sins of the sons were visitedon the fathers").
Paradoxically, the momentumof the rediscoveryof early Italian
painterswas restoredonlyby the growingagreementthatthese" primi-
tives" should not be held responsibleforthe unfortunate developments
in contemporaryart; instead,theycould be happily subsumedunder
the favoriteVictorian banner of progress,forafterall, theyhad been
the forerunnersof Raphael. Such a case, which exemplifiesJauss's

12 WENDY GRISWOLD
second,fifth, and sixththesesparticularlywell,revealsthe instabilityof

receptivehorizonsover time(see also Griswold1986).
Because culturalproductionand receptionare such fluidcate-
gories,the analyst mustbe carefulto specifyboth the agent and the
cultural object of any particularinteractionunder consideration.For
example, a novel is a culturalobject thatis the productof a producer's
brief(intention).It is receivedby a reviewer,who may be understood
as operatingwithina certainhorizonof expectations,and thisreviewer
interpretsand framesthe novel. The reviewerthen has a charge to
produce a new culturalobject ("Review!"), and his interpretation and
framingbecome part of his brief,as do his marketcircumstancesand
intended audience (the receiversfor whom he is producing). The
readersof the reviewreceive(interpret, applaud, despise,frame,value,
remember)the reviewand may do the same withthe originalcultural
object (the novel); theymay also producenew culturalobjects(another
novel, a termpaper on the novel,a verbal account of the novel or of
the reviewto a friend),workingthe novel and perhapsthe reviewinto
the intentionalbrief.This example also raises the issue of genre (of
novels, of reviews,of termpapers): Any of these genres,or types of
genres,may be addressed in termsof Jauss's seven theses,but they
mustnot be confused.The issueof genrespecification will be addressed
below, but the point fornow is that the analystmust keep straightthe
specificframingof the particularsocial agent/culturalobject interac-
tion under considerationwhile recognizingthat his or her overall
investigationmay involveany numberof discreteinteractionsamong
different agents and objects.
A considerationof receptiondemonstrates the indispensablerole
comparison plays in elucidatingcultural meanings for social actors.
Comparison is useful even for developing hypothesesof originating
intention(Donne's typical use of the term valediction compared with
but
that of his contemporaries), sociologists, althoughtheymustrelyon
intentionas a tool forinvestigation, are usually more concernedwith
significance,i.e., with the relationshipbetweena cultural object and
some human beings beyond its creator.7Here, neitheran assumed
7Here, I am adopting only part of Hirsch's distinctionbetween meaning

("that which is represented by a text... what the author meant by his use of a
particular sign sequence" [p. 8]) and significance ("a relationship between that
meaning and a person, or a conception, or a situation,or indeed anything" [p. 8]).
For my purposes, it is simpler to use the term intention to refer to the creator's

objective meaning buried in a cultural object nor a hypothetical
intentionalcontextof a creativeagent are as importantas theconstruc-
tions and reconstructions made by the recipientswho interactwiththe
object, and significantreconstructions are only obvious in comparison
with otherconstructions. For example, accordingto Eugene Genovese
(1974), slave owners believed Christianitytaught their chattels the
virtues of humilityand service in expectation of an otherworldly
reward,so theywere tolerantof limitedamountsof missionaryactivity
(so long as the evangelistsdid not teach dangerous skills such as
literacy). The slaves, on the other hand, constructeda gospel whose
characteristicswere quite differentfrom those understoodby their
owners-a gospel emphasizing freedom,individual dignity,earthly
salvation, and even a heavenlysanctioneddeviousness("steal away to
Jesus"). Similarly,a recentstudyof my own demonstratesthat three
differentgroups of recipientsregularlyconstrueddifferent meanings
from George Lamming's novel In the Castle of My Skin: American
readersbelieved it was about race, West Indian readersbelievedit was
about identityand nationbuilding,and Britishreadersbelieved it was
a poetic depictionof growingup, withouta politicalor social message
(Griswold 1987). In cases such as these,any discussionof meaningand
significancebeyond reconstructions of the originatingagent's intention
(whetherthat ofJesusor of Lamming)dependson systematiccompari-
sons.
So far,I have treatedthe interactions proceedingto and froma
cultural object as if they were static,but this is only a convenient
fiction.Because theyare multivocal,culturalobjects are never fixed,
and the analyst mustbe able to treata culturalphenomenonin terms
of its characteristicsas a process,as movementthroughspace and time.
The dynamic natureof a culturalobject is perhapsmostobvious in its
reception,i.e., in its impact on a human agent. A parallel interaction,
also dependent on cultureas process,is influence-the impact of one
cultural object on another. To point out the error of envisioning
influenceas only a forwardmovementover time-A begat B begat C
intended meaning, as Baxandall does, and significance to refer to a relationship

between the cultural object and anyone or anything other than the creator at the
moment of creation (one's past work could come to have new, unsuspected,
significance that was not part of the original intention). Meaning denotes any
relationship between a cultural object and a human agent or, more broadly,
between a cultural object and any other element of the interactive framework;
thus, it subsumes both intentionand significance.

14 WENDY GRISWOLD
- Baxandall uses billiard balls as a metaphorof influence:An agent

operatingat time2 bouncesoffa culturalobject createdat time 1, and
the positionof both is changedby the impact.Haskell's example of the
relationshipbetweenthe earlyItalian paintersand the Pre-Raphaelites
illustratesthisnicely.
Some art historicalquestionsmay be approached in relatively
synchronicterms,for example, throughBaxandall's concept of the
"period eye," the cognitivestyleof a particulargroup at a particular
time and place; but temporaland spatial diffusionare at the heart of
mostsocial scientificinvestigations.Typical issuesand questionsinvolv-
ing diffusionare how Frenchclass relationsare perpetuatedby culture
(Bourdieu 1984), how Soviet newspaperaccounts of collectivismand
anti-individualismappeared in the 1920s, well before these became
state policy (Brooks 1986), and how the Westerndetectivenovel was
imported and adapted to readers' common sense in Meiji Japan
(Ragsdale 1986). The methodologicalimperativecan be expressedas
follows:If a culturalobject producedat time,,place, moves to (i.e., is
analyzed as it exists at) t2p1 or t1p2 or t2p2, the institutionaland
causal connectionsamong the elementsare multipliedaccordingly.
Once again, the analystmustkeep thisstraight.8
In his familiaraccount of the receptionof Methodismby the
English workingclass, E. P. Thompson (1966) exemplifiessome of the
pitfallsof ignoringtemporaldiffusionand of insufficiently specifying
the social agent and the cultural object. Thompson argues that be-
succeeded"in servingsimultaneously
tween1780 and 1832,Methodism
as the religionof the industrialbourgeoisie...and of wide sectionsof
8
The complexity is compounded by the fact that the analyst may also be
understood as an agent at t p>. This raises the problem of objectivity, for the
analyst is always implicated in his choice and treatmentof analytic objects. For
example, a reception study of The Catcherin the Rye has shown the different
responses of readers at t1 (1951), when the novel firstappeared, and at t2 (the late
1950s and 1960s), afterit had become a youth classic and had been belatedly taken
up by the literary criticism establishment (Ohmann and Ohmann 1976). The
analysts themselves, however, exist at t3 (1976). They have an interest in the
ideological underpinningsof the process of canonization and are workingat a time
when the constructionof the canon is a topic of lively debate in literarycriticism.
This position influencestheirselection of problems and materials. A student of the
sociology of knowledge (an agent at t4) might analyze the scholars who chose to
study canon formation,and so on ad infinitum.

the proletariat"(p. 355). It suitedthe needs of the formerby inculcat-
ing into the latteran "inner compulsion"towardwork,discipline,and
asceticismwithoutexpectationof profitin thisworld,and it attracted
the proletariatby its enthusiasm,a theologicalhodgepodge of enter-
taining emotionalism,community,and consolation.Methodism thus
played a critical role in transforming undisciplinedcraftsmenand
peasants into the submissivework forcerequiredby the industrialists.
This is a plausible thesis,but shouldwe be persuadedby it? To
put the question positively,How might the application of a more
systematic analytic method have resulted in a firmer case for
Thompson's hypothesis?First,it is extraordinarily difficult
to pin down
the cultural object-the body of essential Methodist doctrines-in
Thompson's account. Wesley,himself,in keepingwith his pragmatic
and experimentalapproach to theology,was inconsistentin his em-
phases, and fromthe very beginning,the Methodistmovementwas
divided betweenCalvinismand Arminianism, betweenfaithalone and
some attention to works, between enthusiasmand decorum (Knox
1950). Our confidence in the cultural object is not increased by
Thompson's temporaleclecticismin supportinghis argument,i.e., by
his reliance on textsrangingfromFoxe's BookofMartyrs, a best-seller
since the 1560s and omnipresentin EnglishProtestantchurches,to Dr.
Ure's Philosophy ofManufactures, whichappeared in 1835. Probably the
best solution to the complexityof the culturalobject is to restrictour
gaze to a particular agent. Given the time period that Thompson
considers,the best candidate would be Jabez Bunting,"the dominant
figureof orthodoxWesleyismfromthe time of Luddism to the last
years of the Chartistmovement"(Thompson 1966, p. 352). The last
years of the Chartist movementwere the late 1840s, well beyond
Thompson's period, but a bit later, Thompson limitshis immediate
argument to the period from 1790 to 1830, which he says are the
decades in which Methodism successfullyindoctrinatedthe working
class and the years of "the rise and dominance of Jabez Bunting"
(p. 375, n. 1). Thompson seems to have accorded Buntingdominance
in two periods: 1790 to 1830, and 1811 (the beginningsof Luddism) to
the late 1840s. Therefore,let us restrictthis agent's time to the
approximateyearsof overlap: 1810 to 1830. The task now would be to
designate the cultural object for Buntingat that time-according to
Thompson, it would be a selectionof the harshestcomponentsof the
Methodisthodgepodge-and to constructa briefthat mightelucidate,

16 WENDY GRISWOLD
or redefine,aspects of thisculturalobject. Such a procedurecould be

done, but Thompson hasn't done it; most of his evidence,even that
regardingBuntinghimself,fallswell outsidethe time period in ques-
tion. One would also have to position Bunting in a social
group-Methodist preachers-and showthe degreeto whichhe repre-
sented that group. Even Thompson admitsthat Bunting'sdominance
was by no means complete,and other sources stressthe varietyof
opinions even among thosewho remainedwithinthe MethodistCon-
nexion. Then there is the question of Bunting's,and Methodism's,
actual impact. Methodistmembershipnever exceeded 4.5 percentof
English adults, and by the time it reached this peak (about 1840),
softeningand liberalizingtendencieshad been at work for over a
decade (Hempton 1984, p. 12; Thompson 1966, p. 375, n. 1). By
shiftingthe agent in questionfromBuntingto some set of recipients,
one could argue that the 4-5 percent who were convertedwere
especially influentialamong theirworking-classpeers,insofaras they
tendedto be skilledartisansratherthanthepoorestamong theworking
class (Hempton 1984, p. 14). But of course,it was this artisangroup
that was especially radical in the "radicalism of tradition"(Calhoun
1982), so one mightjust as well argue that Methodismcontributedto
the revolutionaryimpulsesof the time.Thompsonhimself,contradict-
ing his main argument,lends supportto thisview in his discussionof
the "reactive" Methodistpoliticalrebelswho retainedthe earnestness,
sense of calling, organizationalcapacities, and sense of personal re-
sponsibilityassociatedwiththeirsect (p. 394).
The purpose of this example is not so much to question
Thompson's thesis as to point out that even such a clever cultural
analysis, sensitive to interpretiveand institutionalfactors,fails to
convince because of a general,and correctable,methodologicalheed-
lessness. The failure to specifythe cultural object, the switchingof
agents,the failureto specifythe connectionsbetweenagentsand social
groups,and thecasual attitudetowardtemporality cripplesThompson's
argument.What we end up withhere-what we too oftenend up with
in cultural analysis-are some generalsuggestionsimplyinghow a set
of social experiencesengage in some mutuallyreinforcing dialecticwith
some cultural objects. Such a dialectic may well exist,but withouta
more precisespecification of the connectingelementsinvolved,the case
is not firmlyestablished.

COMPREHENSION
For the analyst, comprehensionmeans understandingthose

characteristicsof the cultural object that bear on the investigation.
Such understandingrequiresboth inclusion-the analyst "takes in"
the object-and utility-the analyst "grasps" the object, "gets a
handle on it," in order to do somethingwith it. But culturalobjects
seldom have handles,nor do theycome in clearlydemarcatedunitsof
meaning to be gatheredup like apples. The analystfacesa figure/field
problem: How is he to designate,even provisionally, thosecharacteris-
tics that will be helpful to his explorationsof meaning and social
connectedness and that will be available to the understandingof
others,i.e., replicable?9How is a scientific
comprehensionpossible?
Comprehensionentailsapperception,the interpretation of a new
cultural object in termsof what is already known.Thus, genreis the
key to analytic comprehension.Genres,as theyhave been understood
in literarytheory,are classificationsbased on similaritiesand dif-
ferences.Making genericdistinctions involvessorting,seeingthe simi-
laritiesin different literaryobjects,abstractingthe common elements
from a welter of particular variations. Since the Renaissance, the
dominant view among criticshas been that genres are arbitrarily
defined; such definitionsare oftenpractical,but the criticshould not
fall for the "superstition"that genres have any ontological status
(Croce [1922] 1978, p. 449). Like the critic,the sociological analyst,
being practical, may grasp cultural objects throughthe provisional
constructionof genre. Employing a convenientfictionfor the time
being, the analystmay treatgenreas ifit were a propertyof a cultural
object, therebyemphasizingthat object's similarityto and differences
fromother cultural objects.Thus construed,genremay be a variable
or a constantin culturalanalysis.
Two conceptionsof genre that come fromliterarycriticism
provided by Hirsch (1967) and by Rosmarin(1985)-clarify the link
9 Interpretive analyses, unlike institutional analyses have attempted to

designate such characteristicsbut have been notoriouslyresistantto methodological
specification. Thus, there exists an impasse between the notion that one rich
interpretation is as good as the next and the notion that sociologists have no
business interpretingculture anyway.

18 WENDY GRISWOLD
between comprehensionand genre. In some respects,the two are

explicitlyopposed. Hirsch'sprimaryinterestin genrelies in itscapacity
to offerclues to an author's intendedmeaning,while Rosmarin sees
genre as a pragmatic decision made by critics to facilitate their
criticism.Hirsch advocatesa methodof probabilisticanalysisto narrow
the field toward an increasinglyprecise reconstruction of authorial
intention("intrinsicgenre"), while Rosmarin looks for syllogisticex-
pansiveness (the best genre decision by the criticis that which will
lead to the longest and most fruitfulchain of syllogisms).For the
sociological analyst, however, their points of agreement are more
significant.Both regardgenrenot as some propertyof the literarytext
but as an inherentlysocial relationship.For Hirsch,the relationshipis
between the author and the interpreter; the author mustworkwithin
the reader's set of genericexpectations,or the author's meaning will
not be communicated.Thus, genreis constitutive as well as heuristic.
Rosmarin's concern is also with commnunication, althoughthe agents
she focuseson are criticsand theirreaders.In additionto thisshared
concern with the social, both theoristsemphasize the historicalcon-
tingenciesof genre,as opposed to some Aristoteleanfixity.For Hirsch,
historyconstitutesthe backgroundforthe author'sgenericchoices; for
Rosmarin,historyis thebackgroundforthecritic'spracticalchoices.In
both cases, genreis neitherobvious nor unchanging.
Previously,I pointed out that there are two types of social
agents in relation to culturalobjects: the producer(or originator,or
creator)and the recipient.These may be betterunderstoodas phases of
agency, and when the phase changes,the culturalobject changes too:
The recipientof a sonnetbecomesthe producerof anothersonnetor of
a criticalessay.10The producingagent has some idea of what genrehe
is workingin; that is, he intendshis culturalobject to fitinto,or refer
to, one or more knownclassifications having particularcharacteristics.
This sense of genre,constitutive in Hirsch's typology,formsa part of
the agent's brief; Piero knew that the genre of altarpieces implied
certainthingsthatall altarpieceshad in common.In empiricalcultural
10For precision's sake, one should avoid thinkingof an agent as a mediator.

Mediation is simply the combination of the reception and production of different
cultural objects. For example, the disk jockey, a classic gatekeeper, selects from a
large number of records clamoring for attention and produces a "Pick of the
Week" or "Top Ten." To say that the disk jockey mediates between recording
artists and audiences is true enough, but it obscures the two separate actions
involved.

analysis, the analyst reconstructing the creativeagent's briefattempts
to understand his intrinsicgenre. But to comprehendthe cultural
object for his own practical purposes, the analyst makes generic
decisionsof his own, treatinggenreas a heuristicin his attemptto get a
comparative handle on the objectsin question.
For example, in Thompson's Methodismcase, eitherWesley or
Buntingcould be analyzed as a producingagent.But the genreWesley
was workingin was Anglicanism;his culturalobject was a versionof
Anglicanismthatincorporatedhisown theologicalbeliefsand doctrines,
for he had no intentionof foundinga sect that would be outside the
English Church or, in our terms,outside the Anglican genre. Thus,
Wesley's constitutivegenre was different fromBunting's,which was
Methodism; Bunting's cultural object was one type of Methodism
within the now well-establishedMethodistmovement.Because their
genres were different-Anglicanismversus Methodism-their briefs
were different.The cultural analyst, before undertakinggenre con-
structionin its heuristicsenseforhis practicalresearch,should attempt
to reconstructWesley's or Bunting'sconstitutivegenre and the inten-
tionsbehind it. Then theanalystmay tryto comprehendthe Methodist
movementas a whole,eitherby locatingit withinsome broader genre
or by takingit as a genreitself,i.e., as a classificationof widelyshared
religiousbeliefsand practices(taken as culturalobjects here) distinct
from other religious genres. If he takes Methodism as a genre, he
regards it as a set of beliefs and practices having some common
elements and distinctfrom other Protestantsects of the time; to
comprehend this genre,he must focus on the similaritiesamong all
cultural objects withinthe class labeled "Methodist" and clarifythe
distinctionbetweenobjectswithinand withoutthe Methodistcategory.
(This appears to have been Thompson'sdecision,althoughhis empha-
sis on Bunting's harsh variety of Methodism belies his choice of
Methodism as a whole.) The analyst might make differentgeneric
decisions in his attemptsto comprehendMethodism.He mighttake
Methodism itself as a cultural object within the genre of English
Protestantsects, distinctfrom the establishedchurch, or he might
considerthe genreto be eighteenth-century European sectarianmove-
ments, distinctfrom contemporarysecular social movements,or he
might select one froma number of other possible classifications.In
each case, the analyst makes a decision about genre that has conse-
quences forcomparativeand causal statements.He setsup a classifica-

20 WENDY GRISWOLD
tion by postulatingboundariesthatwill allow him to perceivecommon

or varying characteristicsamong cultural objects withinand outside
the genre.Then, at the explanationstage of the analysis,he linksthese
common or varyingcharacteristics to the externalsocial world.
This processof comprehendingthe culturalobject by establish-
ing provisional,heuristicgenresexemplifiesRosmarin's pragmatism.
But I want to emphasizemyagreementwithHirsch'scontentionthatit
is desirable to give temporalprivilegeto the producingagent's mean-
ings, especially includinghis genericdecisions.This helps the analyst
and
elucidate parts of the culturalobject in question,itsdistinctiveness
and it enables him to constructbettergenresof his own
its affiliations,
based on their analytical utility.Piero's reconstructed briefprovides
data on his intendedgenre(altarpiece),whichcan be used as evidence
even when the analystis focusingon a different genre(Piero's paint-
ings) and askingwhy one particularworkis different fromhis others.
The sociologistmay ultimatelybe more concernedwith significance
than with intention,but the latteris a way to the former.
EXPLANATION
While comprehensionrefersto the genericspecificationof the

cultural object, and intentionand receptionreferto the interactionof
objects and agents,explanationis the analyst'sconnectionof cultural
objects, throughsocial agents,to the externalworld beyond the crea-
tivecommunity.My consideration of explanationbuildson the theories
of two of the most astute analysts of cultural phenomena: Lucien
Goldmann and CliffordGeertz. Goldmann ([1967] 1970), a Belgian
Marxist sociologistinfluencedby Lukacs, postulated that over the
course of theirhistories,social groups(by whichhe meant classes and
class fractions)develop shared categoriesof understandingthat tran-
scend what any individualgroup memberpossesses.The artist,who is
unusually thoughperhapsunconsciouslyreceptiveto the mentalcate-
goriesof his group,incorpQrates homologuesof thesecategoriesin his
or
artistic literary works. In keeping with this program of "genetic
structuralism," Goldmanndefinedthecomprehension of culturalworks
more narrowly than I have in the discussionof genre. For him,
comprehensionwas the elucidationof structures withinthe works.In
the case of masterpieces,whose coherenceis especially profoundby
definition,these structuresorganize most of the featuresof the work.
Explanation then becomes a matterof findinghomologiesbetween

these structuresand the mental structures, or collectivecategories,of
the artist'ssocial group,whichsharesa historicalpositionand predica-
ment. In his well-knownapplication of this analytic method, he
connects the tragic vision articulatedby Racine and Pascal with the
existential,ultimatelypoliticaldespair embodiedin radical Jansenism,
with which they were associated (Goldmann 1964). For example,
Racine's plays characteristicallyhave an authorityfigurewho is both
all powerfuland totallyimperviousto petition,uninfluencedby the
principal characters. Goldmann saw such a figure as structurally
equivalent to the omnipotent,predestining,yet absent God of the
JansenistmovementwithinFrenchCatholicism.This God, in turn,was
homologous to the Frenchking'spositionin relationto the noblesse de
robe:The king created them,theywere completelydependenton him
for their social being, yet theywere unable to influencehim in any
way. And the veryexistenceof the noblesse de robewas the resultof the
rise of French absolutism: Beginning in the sixteenthcentury,the
monarchsoughtto gain powerrelativeto theold nobilityby creatinga
new administrativenobility.Goldmann's general method,and its ap-
plication to thisparticularcase, may be representedas follows:
Cultural - Structures Mental Social group's- Class Other

objects, structures position relations historical
and
especially ofsocial in that in period economic
masterpieces group period factors
Pascal's - Tragic vision- Extreme - Noblesse

de- 17th-century-
Causes of
Pensjes, Jansenism robe France riseof
Racine's absolutism
plays
Comprehension Explanation
Goldmann's explicitconcernwithmethodcontrastssharplywith
Geertz's equally explicitrejectionof methodologicalspecificationbe-
yond "thick description."But in spite of his vigorousdenial of gener-
alizing intent or systematicprocedures,Geertz's actual practice in
interpretiveanalysismay be schematicallyrepresentedin similarfash-
ion. As an anthropologistwho has studiedformsof collectiveexpression
fromcockfightsto funerarycustoms,Geertz has considereda broader
range of cultural objects than Goldmann, and his research lacks
Goldmann's special emphasis on masterpieces(although cultural en-
durance seems to weigh heavily). Geertz examines cultural perfor-
mances fortheirenacted signsand symbols,notjust structures, and he

22 WENDY GRISWOLD
is particularlyinterestedin the local cognitivestylesthat give meaning

to thesesymbols.In his explanations,he arguesthatthiscognitivestyle
originatesin the social and cultural experienceof a society,without
according primacy to the relations of conflictbetween classes (as
requiredby Goldmann's Marxistassumptions).One case will illustrate
his implicitmethodology.Geertztakesas his culturalobject of analysis
the poetry that is improvisedand sung, accompanied by music and
dancers, at Moroccan festivalssuch as weddings (Geertz 1983, pp.
109-17). This poetryembodiescertainproverbialthemes:thehopeless-
ness of passion, the virtueof assertiveness,
the inevitabilityof death. It
also containsnumerouscontentiousstatements, both formulaic(women
are not to be trusted)and particularto the occasion ("See how many
shameful things the teacher [who is presentat the wedding feast]
did;/He only worked to fill his pockets"). Indeed, the performance
itselfmay be a contestbetweentwo poets tradinginsultsand tryingto
outdo each other. In the performanceof this poetry,Geertz findsthe
intersectionof the sacred and the profane, the intersectionof the
divinityof the Quran as Allah's directword, and thus the divinityof
language in general, and the everydaystrugglesof human beings to
gain advantages for themselvesand their groups. An educational
systemthat emphasizesrecitationof memorizedtextsand an everyday
styleof communicationthat is combative,manipulative,and eloquent
prepares poets and theiraudiences to regard oral poetryas charged
with power throughits verymoral ambiguity,drawn fromthe region
"between the discourseof God and the wrangleof men" (Geertz 1983,
p. 117). Intentionof the producerand receptionby the audience are
based on their shared sensibility,or as Geertz put it, "art and the
equipment to grasp it are made in the same shop" (p. 118). The
general structureof Geertz's method,and its specificapplication to
Moroccan poetry,may be representedthus:
Cultural- Signsand --Matrix of A people'ssocial-A people'ssocialand
objects symbols sensibility and cultural culturalexperience
(anything) in performance (local) experience experience(extended)
context (proximate)
Moroc- Sung verses - Glorification Educationstresses-Quranas Allah'sword,
can in public oflanguage, habits recitation
recitation, as worship,
poetry performance, assumption that ofagonistic patternsofsocial
patternsof poetryis vehicle interpersonal conflict
(e.g. between
proverbsand forsocialconflict communication sexes,villages,status
argumentation groups)

This parallel schematizationbringsout several differences be-
tweenGeertz'sand Goldmann'sstylesof culturalexplanation.Geertzis
not willingto generalizefromone "local" resultto another;Goldmann
is, and he is confidentabout whichvariableshave causal primacy.The
two representextremesthat suggestthe intermediate:the possibilityof
generalizingbeyond the strictlylocal while remainingagnosticabout
ultimate causality in any particularcase. Also, while Goldmann con-
centrateson artistsand their class backgrounds,Geertz brings in a
wider varietyof human agents(poets,weddingguests,hostswho place
certain demands on the poets) operatingin and througha varietyof
institutions(the performancecontextof a wedding, an educational
systemthat emphasizes memorizationof texts). Such breadth seems
desirable, at least as an initial strategy,in attemptingto understand
complex cultural phenomenawithoutimposingpreconceivedideas too
hastily.Yet, while Geertzseemsto implya matrixof sensibilityforan
entiresociety(indeed, forall Islamic societies),Goldmann talks about
the mental structuresof distinguishablesocial categoriesor groups
withinthe largersociety.Goldmann'sprogrammore accuratelyrepre-
sents sociological capacitiesthan do the extremesof eitherpsychologi-
cal reductionismor the assumptionthatall membersof a societyshare
a common knowledgeand sensibility.
Drawing what seemsto be mostusefulfromboth methods,one
arrivesat a frameworkforculturalanalysisthat may be schematically
representedas follows:
Cultural- Structures,
--Agent- Mentality Matrixof-Social and- Social and
object symbols, and situation local cultural cultural
patterns ofsocial sensibility experience experience
groupor (proximate) (remote)
category
Several featuresof this frameworkrequire comment.First (moving

fromleftto right),the culturalobject under examinationis identified
by the analyst as anythingthat fitsthe general definitionof shared
significance embodied in form. The model does not assume that
masterpiecesare different
fromlesserworks,thatso-calledhighculture
is different
frompopular culture,or that tangibleculturalartifactsare
differentfromsystemsof ideas, beliefs,values, or practices.Cultural

24 WENDY GRISWOLD
objects are distinguishedfromtheirsurroundingsocioeconomiccontext

not by their ontologicalstatus but by theiranalytic use. When the
analyst attends to the significance,the meaning beyond itself,of a
particularhuman artifact,idea, or piece of behavior,he may thereby
considerit a culturalobject; the same artifact,idea, or behaviormight
be considereda commodityor an elementof the social structurein a
different analysis.
Second, symbols,patternsof symbolsor relations,and formal
structuresare available componentsfor the comprehensionof any
cultural object. To comprehenda culturalobject,one beginswith the
genres,distinctions, and comparisonsused by the expertson the object
in question.There are two typesof experts:the academic specialiston
the subject, and the local informantwho actually interactswith the
object in question. For example, sociologistsstudyinga religioussect
should determinethe analytic and comparative categoriesused by
theologians to talk about sects-beliefs and practices,eschatology,
theodicy,liturgy,what thesectis groupedwithand differentiated from
-and examine the terminologyand assumptionsof sect members
themselves.Sociologistsstudyingnovelsshould comprehendtheirdata
using the terms of literarycritics-genres like "Gothic novel" or
Kunstlerroman, narrativestructure,characterization,themes,imagery,
moral content-and the termsauthorsor readers use to talk about
novels. Experts' categories do not constitutethe sociologist'sfinal
restingpoint,but in any unknowncountry,it pays to listento what the
natives have to say. Then, if the experts'conceptionsof genre are
inadequate for the social scientist'spurposes,he may provisionally
constructhis own genre.Goldmannchose to group Pascal and Racine
togetherregardlessof theirintentions,defininga genre of the tragic
vision that he could thenlink to the politico-economic positionof the
noblessede robe. Similarly,Geertz established an implicit genre of
glorified agonistic language to illustratethe relationshipbetween
Moroccan weddingpoemsas culturalobjectsand the Quran as part of
remoteculturalexperience.
Third, the pivotof the framework is the agent. The agent may
be a cultural producer(prophet,artist),recipient(audience member,
personoperatingin a particularideologicalcontext),mediator(editor,
preacher,impressario,media figure,arts administrator), or any other
social actor. The essentialpointis thatfora sociologicalanalysis,there
must be a specifiable,observable,behavingagent who interactswitha

culturalobject and forwhoma probablestructureof intention(a brief)
can be constructed.This does not mean that the analystmustbe able
to ascertain subjective,let alone conscious,meaning at the individual
agent's level, but it does mean that the analyst should know enough
about the agent's social and historicalcontext,and about his im-
mediate productive or receptiveconditions,to produce a justifiable
reconstruction of his intentionality.
Fourth,the agent is understoodas someone who subscribesto,
participates in, or reacts to the mentalityof some specific social
categories or some more formallyorganized social groups. Such cat-
egories and groups constitutethe intermediatevariable betweenagent
and society. Categories refersto divisionsby class, sex, race, ethnicity,
age, cohort, education, occupation, and geographic location, and to
any combinationof thesetypicalsociologicalvariables,as in studiesof
working-classteenage boys. Groupsdenotes formal membershipor
face-to-facecontact. Mentality is a short-hand(lesignationforcognitive
style,orthodoxy-heterodoxy-doxa (Bourdieu 1977), shared knowledge,
common sense, group consciousness, and the rmental structures favored
by Goldmann. Thus, intentionsare influencedi by an agent's concrete
situationand by his membershipin social categoriesand groups.
Fifth,the idea of local sensibilityhas been adopted fromGeertz
to distinguishthe ways of thinkingand behaving characteristicof the
most immediate spatial and temporal contextof groups and agents
from those more distant.More than one social categoryand group
participate in a given local sensibility,which sets the ideological
contextforthe more particularconcernsand attitudesof the group in
question. Conversely,many social groupingscross localities,and in
some typesof analyses,thismay be the more importantconsideration.
Sixth,the local sensibility, and any particulargroup'sparticipa-
tion in it, is shaped by the social (especially economic and political)
and culturalexperienceof thepeople in question.Such experiencemay
be arbitrarilydivided between the more proximate and the more
remote, as in Geertz's interpretation of the remoteinfluenceof the
Quran throughthe more proximatepatternscifIslamic education.
Finally, it must be rememberedthat every element on the
explanatory side of the heuristicis linked to or separated from its
neighborsvia social institutions. Flows of influlenceare not automatic
but are channeled and mediated.This is apparent,forexample, in the
transmissionof Africanculturalknowledge(social and culturalexperi-

26 WENDY GRISWOLD
Since certain
ence) to the slaves of the New World (local sensibility).11
typesof religiousknowledgewere passed on only throughthe eldersof
the West Africanpeoples fromwhich the slave trade drew,and since
the slave trade was largelyrestrictedto teenagersand young adults,
there was a rupturebetweenremoteand proximateexperiencethat
made it institutionally impossiblefortheseelementsof Africanculture,
despitetheirsignificance, of the New
to reappearin thelocal sensibility
World. Similarly,much sociological attentionhas been paid to the
disproportionaterepresentation of certaincategories,and not others,
among agents involved in the actual productionof cultural objects.
The explorationof social institutions need not be the ultimategoal of
socioculturalanalysis,but such institutionsdo constituteindispensable
variables in the explanationof culturalphenomena.
Now, takingtheframework developedin the examinationof the
explanatoryproceduresof Goldmann and Geertz,one may add inten-
tion,reception,and comprehension in termsof genre.The finalframe-
work, applicable to all modes of culturalanalysisthat aspire to deal
withthe culturalobject and at the same timeprovidea comprehensive
explanation,now looks like this:
Cultural-Genre: Agent(tip), -Mentality- Matrixof-Social and -Social and

object structures, withintentions ofsocial local cultural cultural
symbols, and receptive categories sensibilityexperience experience
patternsof horizonof and groups (proximate) (remote)
likenessand expectations
difference
A culturalanalysisthatpays attentionto the elementsand connections

of this frameworkwill produce findingsthat meet our criterionof
sensitivity of culturalphenomenaand our
to the specificcharacteristics
scientificdesiderataof rigorand potentialforgeneralization.
VALIDI7Y
A methodologicalframework is only that. It does not constitute

a theory,although its application may generatebettertheories.Nor
does it address the vital issueof validity.In thisfinalsection,I explore
" This example comes fromdiscussionswith Orlando Patterson.

the question of validityin culturalanalysisusingan extendedexample,
and I use the example to sketchthe movementfromframeworkto
theorybuilding.
Validity may be understoodin two senses.The narrowersense
denotes applicability or appropriateness,as when a scale measures
what it is supposed to measure.For example,Hirsch(1967) arguesthat
an interpretationmade by a critic is valid if it correspondsto the
meaning intended by the author. But Hirsch goes on to distinguish
between "valid" and "correct," and this distinctionbears on the
second sense of validity.The critic,or analyst,can never know for
certain whetheror not his interpretation is correct:"The aim of the
disciplinemustbe to reach a consensus,on the basis of what is known,
that correctunderstandinghas probablybeen achieved" (p. 17). Two
interpretations may both be valid, but theycannot both be correct.If
analysis turns up two equally probable interpretations, furtherresearch
should be conducted to determine which interpretationis more
probable, i.e., moreconsistent withthe evidenceand withthestandards
of the discipline(p. 173). This is the second meaning of validity:An
interpretation is valid if it is deemed sound by an accepted standardof
authority,in thiscase a discipline.
Using the analyticframeworkset out in thisessay,we can say
that an inferenceis valid (1) if it connectstwo or moreelementsof the
frameworkand if the connection,or correspondence,is a correctone
based on the best available evidenceand (2) ifit meetsthestandardsof
social science. Such standards,though not yet specifiedfor cultural
analysis, include parsimony (if two connectinghypothesesare equally
supportedby the evidence,the simplerone should be favored),pleni-
tude(if two connectinghypothesesare equally supportedby the evi-
dence, the one that illuminatesmore characteristicsof the cultural
object should be favored),and amplitude (if two connectinghypotheses
are equally supported by the evidence and meet the criteria of
parsimonyand plenitude,the one thatseemsto illuminatethe greatest
range of cultural objects should be preferred).(Adherenceto this last
standardultimatelyresultsin a respecification of the genrein question.)
To determine what constitutesthe best evidence, we may follow
Hirsch's suggestion:In the eventof conflicting evidence,that fromthe
narrowerclass of phenomenashould be consideredthe more weighty.
For example, if we were seekingto understandJohnWesley'sattitude
toward Arminianismat some pointin his career(agent at t,), evidence

28 WENDY GRISWOLD
fromhis own writingsand actions outweighsevidence fromthose of

other Methodists(same agent), evidence fromother Methodistsout-
weighsthat fromotherevangelicals(narrowerclass of agents),evidence
fromhis writingsand actionsnear the timeof interestoutweighsthat
frommore remoteperiods,and so on.
Let us apply theframework to an example thatincludescriteria
of validity and considerationsof genre. The topic is contemporary
Nigerian popular fiction,specificallythosereworkingsof the Western
romance novel formulathat are currently writtenby Nigerianauthors
forlocal consumption.The generalquestionto be investigatedinvolves
cross-culturaltransmission:What happenswhen a culturalgenrefrom
one societygets transported,reproduced,and adapted by another?To
answer this question, the researchermust examine the interaction
betweensocial change and culture.The specificresearchproblemis as
follows:While Nigerianpopular romancesresemblethe formulaestab-
lished in Western romances,a significantproportionof them have
endings radically differentfrom the Western model. In Western
romances,a young woman and a young man workthroughobstacles
and mutual misunderstandings to realize their love for each other.
Many of the Nigerian romanceshave radicallydifferent endings; the
young female protagonistdoes not end up engaged or marriedto the
male hero. What accountsforthisdifference, forthisdeviationfroma
formula that in other respectsis adapted ratherfaithfully?Several
hypothesesoccur:
1. Nigerianauthorshave insufficientlyabsorbedthe essentialsof
the Western formula; thus, because of their inexperiencewith the
genre,theyinclude discordantelements."2This hypothesisemphasizes
the author'srole as producingagent.Testingit would requireexamin-
settings(career lines and opportuni-
ing both the authors'institutional
ties forpublication)and theirsocial and educationalbackgrounds.An
authors' briefcould be constructed.
2. Nigerian readersof romancenovelsare different fromWest-
ern readers,and thesedifferences, probablyattributableto class, age,
12 Ragsdale (1986) has noted a similar pattern in the importation of the

Western detective novel formula into Meiji Japan. Japanese adaptors and writers
did not immediately grasp the role of clues-their own detectives' procedures
depended on a close analysis of social relationships-and their adaptations of the
Western novels often contained clues that were misspecifiedor otherwise uncon-
nected with the plot. Later writersgrew more adept at workingwith the conven-
tion, although they retained theiremphasis on social relationshipsas well.

and sex, give themdifferent tastes,whichtheirpopular authorsseek to
satisfy.Here, the focus is on readers as receivingagents. The demo-
graphic characteristicsof readers,theirintentions, and theirhorizonof
expectationsmighthave to be discoveredto testthis.This hypothesis
also depends on an institutionalsettingin whichreaders'tastesactually
influencecultural production.
3. Nigerian publishersfilterout novelswithtraditionalWestern
endings.This is an organizational,production-of-culture argumentthat
requires the analyst to look for selective pressuresof editors and
publishersin theircapacity as gatekeepers.
4. The Nigerian conceptionof love differsfromthe Western
conception; therefore, the Nigeriantreatmentof love in fictiondiffers.
This is an interpretive,
reflectionargumentconnectinga culturalobject
to remotesocioculturalexperience.This typeof hypothesisis typicalof
sociological approaches thattake culturalobjectsseriouslyand thatare
sensitiveto theircapacitiesas symbolic,collectiverepresentations. Such
an argumentoftenappeals to humanisticconcerns(it explains previ-
ously obscure aspects of the culturalobject in question) and is hard to
disprovebecause of its interpretivenature.
5. Not the Nigerian conceptionof love but theirconceptionof
stories,of narrative structuresdiffersfrom the Western conception.
Therefore,the treatmentof any numberof themesin Nigerian fiction
differsfromtheirtreatmentin Westernfiction.Here, the emphasisis on
the persistenceof formratherthan the reflection of content.This is also
an interpretivehypothesis;thus,it is hard, but essential,to assess its
validityin comparisonwiththe fourthhypothesis.
More hypothesescould be generated,but these are sufficiently
representativefor our purposes.Now, by applying the frameworkto
the hypotheses,we can make an initial attempt to compare their
probabilities.
1. Given the popularityof importedWestern romances with
Nigerian readers, and given the commercialinstitutionalcontextof
popular fiction,it would behoove local authors to figureout the
essentialsof the formula,along withappropriateadaptations,quickly.
If the Westernformulamay be said to have been establishedin the late
1960s and early 1970s in the West13 (time1,place1), one mightexpect
13 In this example, the West is Britain, Canada, and the U.S. The romance
formula was originally developed by Mills and Boon in Britain, but the line was
later taken over by Harlequin, a Canadian firm.During the romance boom of the
1970s, publishers in the U.S. were the most active and innovative. Although the

30 WENDY GRISWOLD
that the authors at time2,place2 (Nigerian authorsin the late 1970s)

would have made errorsbut thattheseerrorswould begin to disappear
at time3,place2. This has not been thecase; whilethe bulk of Nigerian
romances do followthe traditionalWesternformulaand end with a
marriage,thosedeviatingfromit are among the morerecentnovels.
2. Nigerian romancesare publishedby commercialpublishers
whose livelihoodsdepend on theirresponsiveness to the preferencesof
theirmarket;therefore, the natureof thatmarketis veryinfluentialin
publishingdecisions.However, theredoes not seem to be much evi-
dence supporting the hypothesisthat particular characteristicsof
Nigerian romance readers,in comparisonwiththeirWesterncounter-
parts, influencethe endingsof romancenovels.While romnance novels
are held in low criticalesteemin the West,theyare not consumedby
readersof meager educationor low social class. Like readersof fiction
in general, Westernromance readerstend to be affluent,young,and
well-educated members of the middle class; they differfrom the
general profileonly in that theyare overwhelmingly female(Radway
1984). Nigerian readers are also disproportionately educated and
affluent;they constitutea small fractionof their society,for the
majority of adult Nigeriansare illiteratein English. They are also
disproportionatelyChristian,urban, arnd"modern" (Schmidt 1965).
Therefore,for example, they and their familieswould be far more
likely to reject arranged marriagesfor individual choice than would
their rural counterparts.Many have receivedWesterneducations,as
have a high percentageof theirauthors.It seemslikelythatthe readers
of the romance novels are also predominantlyfemale, at least in
comparison to Nigerian readers as a whole, since the majcorityof
protagonistsare female.They may be somewhatyoungerthan their
Westerncounterparts;literacyis far higheramong youngercohortsin
Nigeria, thereare more people in the youngercohorts,and a number
of Nigerian romancenovelstake place in university settingsinvolving
students,somethingthatis unusual in Westernnovels.Of course,aside
fromtheireducational,class, and age characteristics, Nigerianreaders
have vastlydifferent social experiencesthan Westernreaders,but there
seems to be no reasonto suppose that thesedifferences createdifferent
horizonsof expectationsregardingthe satisfactory outcome of a fic-
formula has developed over the two decades of its existence, its heroines having
grown more independent, more career oriented,and more sexually adventuresome,
differencesamong the three major producing countriesremain slight.

tional love affair.If anything,the Nigerian readers' relative youth
mightmake them moreoptimistic.
3. Unlike some publishersof serious literature,Nigerian pub-
lishersof popular fictionare not subsidized; hence, they are entirely
market dependent (an importantitem in the briefof the publisher-
as-agent in our framework).Nigeria is a signatoryof the Geneva
(1952) version of the Universal CopyrightConvention,so local pub-
lishersare not competingwith pirated copies of foreignbooks to any
significantextent. Locally produced books tend to be cheaper than
imports,so publishersdo not need to offersomethingdifferentto
compete with importedromances.The same publisherspublish books
with traditionaland atypical endings.There seems to be no evidence
that they are selecting against traditionalstories,and there is no
obvious motivationto do so, so faras we can discernfromour brieffor
Nigerian romance publishers.
4. The Nigerian and Westernconceptionsof love may differ,
does not seem to have had much influence
but this possible difference
on the popularityof Western-style romancesamong that segmentof
the Nigerian populationthatreads fiction.If we respecifythe genrein
question to be Nigerian fictionaldepictions of love in any form
(includingshortstoriesand chapbooks),we findthatas farback as the
1950s and early 1960s,storiesdepictingindividualromanticchoice and
advocating a "follow yourheart" attitudewere the mostpopular with
Nigerian readers, in spite of strong social norms to the contrary
(Schmidt 1965). Now, takingthe genreto be the romancenovel itself,
as a single class, we note that Western-authoredromances of the
Harlequin varietycontinueto be immenselypopular in Nigeria,out-
selling the locally produced novels. Therefore,we see that Nigerian
readersare clearlynot put offby alien depictionsof love. Furthermore,
even the majorityof locallyproducedromanceshave traditionalhappy
endings (it is the presenceof a significantminorityof othertypesof
endingsthatwe are seekingto explain). The reflection theory(different
conceptions of love get reflectedin differentliteraryoutcomes) is
inadequate because it ignoresthe actual producing and consuming
agents of popular fictionand because it is insufficiently comparative
across genres.
5. Nigerian readersand authorsare close to and familiarwith
oral literarytraditionsand styles.The dominantnarrativemode was
oral until the presentgeneration,and oral narrativestillpredominates
over literaryformsin rural Nigeria. Oral narrativesare distinguished

32 WENDY GRISWOLD
fromwrittennarrativesby theirepisodic structure:One thingfollows

another, and the literatepatternin which the early parts of a text
prefigureor set into motion events of the later part is absent. Plot
structureswithinthe Africanoral traditionare unifiedby the factthat
a single characteris undergoingthe seriesof experiences,not by any
logical or necessaryconnections(Schmidt 1970). Such narrativeshave
no endings; they simply break off when the story-tellingcontext
changes. Similarly,the Nigerian romances under considerationhere
just seem to break offat some point in the heroine'sromanticcareer;
she has lost her lover but she will get another,or so the episodic
narrativestructure, withone woman and severalmen,seemsto suggest.
A comparisonof Nigerianromancefiction,detectivefiction,and
"literary" fictionshows that the same patternof loosely connected
episodes and irresoluteendingsor outcomesnot prefiguredby earlier
parts of the narrative recurs in all three. These three genres are
narrower,and hence may be assumed to carry more explanatory
weight,than "the romancenovel." Thus, if the culturalpuzzle is the
occasionally radically differentoutcomesNigerian authors choose to
end theirotherwisetypicalpopular romances,the hypothesisthat the
oral formpersistseven when Westerngenresare adapted by Nigerian
writersseems to be mostconsistentwiththe existingevidence.
Additional criteria for this explanation include parsimony,
plenitude,and amplitude.The oral-influencehypothesis(5) is clearly
more parsimoniousthan the related different-conceptions-of-love hy-
pothesis(4), because it does not involvean elaborate symbolicdecod-
ing, nor does it attemptto get insidethe heads of readersor authors.
(The firstthree,institutionalhypothesesmightbe equally parsimoni-
ous, but there is considerable evidence against them; institutional
evidence supportsthe fourthand fifthhypothesesabout equally.) The
oral-influencehypothesismeets the criterionof plenitude; i.e., it ex-
plains othercharacteristicsof the culturalobjectsthatwere not part of
the original puzzle. For example,the Nigerianromancenovelsshow a
relative lack of characterization,backgroundsetting,and scenic de-
of oral literatureto slightthese,although
scription;it is characteristic
all three are standard in the Westernnovel tradition(Schmidt 1970;
Obiechina 1967; Crowder1966). The hypothesisalso meetsthe ampli-
tude criterion,especiallyin comparisonwiththe fourthhypothesis;i.e.,
it sheds light on more seriousliteratureand on otherpopular genres,
such as Nigerian detectivefiction.

If subsequent researchacross a varietyof genrescontinuesto
support the oral-influencehypothesisof cultural transmissionsfrom
more to less literatesocieties,thenwe will be a stepcloserto a theoryof
the endurance of formal,as opposed to substantive,culturalattributes,
which itselfwould constitutea considerableadvance on theculturallag
theory.The purposeof thisexample,however,has not been to promote
such a theoryor even to solve the particularpuzzle of the atypical
endings; the researchon thisproblemis stillunderway."4Instead,the
example is intendedto sketchhow a culturalanalysiscan proceedwith
the systematicdeliberationsuggestedby our framework, and to show
how the validityof some hypotheses, even thoseinvolvedin interpreta-
tion, can be tested.
More generally still, this essay has attempted to raise the
methodologicalconsciousnessof thoseundertakingcultural analysis.I
have suggestedan analyticframework thatincorporatesa fullrange of
cultural,social, and institutionalelements,thatlendsitselfto compara-
tive analysis over timeand space, that allows forthe assessmentof the
validityof different hypothesesregardingcultural-socialties,and, thus,
that contributesto theorydevelopment.However, the success of the
essay will be measurednot so much by the adoption of thisparticular
frameworkas by its-ability to stir debate among cultural sociol-
ogists-debate over research design, variable specification,and the
comparativescientificstatus,hence persuasiveness, of differentcultural
studyoutcomes.Disciplinaryboundariesthatlack intellectualjustifica-
tion have begun to dissolve,and the fieldof the sociologyof cultureis
becoming institutionalized; therefore,the time is rightfordebate over
such fundamentalmethodologicalissues. As is true for any area of
scholarlydiscourse,the strengthof the fieldwill not be manifestedby
an agreement over a set of answers and solutions,but by a shared
concernwith and controversy over the mostimportantquestions.
REFERENCES
ALEXANDER, JEFFREY C. 1983. Theoretical

Logic in Sociology.Vol. 4. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
AUSTIN, J. L. 1962. How to Do Thingswith Words.New York: Oxford University
Press.
14 Preliminary findingsfrom comparisons of the romance novel between

Nigeria and the West can be found in Griswold and Bastian (forthcoming).

34 WENDY GRISWOLD
BAXANDALL, MICHAEL. 1985. Patternsof Intention:On the HistoricalExplanationof

Pictures.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
BOURDIEU, PIERRE. 1977. Outlineofa TheoryofPractice.Translated by Richard Nice.
Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
A Social CritiqueoftheJudgment
. 1984. Distinction: ofTaste. Trans-
lated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
BROOKS, JEFFREY. 1986. "Information and Power: Soviet Mass Print Media
1921-1928." Paper presentedto the Culture and Society Workshop, University
of Chicago.
CALHOUN, CRAIG J. 1982. The Questionof Class Struggle.Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
GROCE, BENEDETTO. (1922) 1978. Aestheticas ScienceofExpressionand GeneralLinguis-
tic. Translated by Douglas Ainslie. Boston: Nonpareil.
CROWDER, MICHAEL. 1966. "Tradition and Change in Nigerian Literature." Tri-
Quarterly
5:117-28.
GEERTZ, CLIFFORD. 1983. Local Knowledge:FurtherEssays in Interpretive
Anthropology.
New York: Basic Books.
GENOVESE, EUGENE D. 1974. Roll, Jordon,Roll. The WorldtheSlavesMade. New York:
Pantheon.
GOLDMANN, LUCIEN. 1964. The Hidden God: A Studyof Tragic Visionin thePenseesof
Pascal and the Tragedies of Racine. Translated by Philip Thody. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
. (1967) 1970. "The Sociology of Literature: Status and Prob-
lems of Method." Pp. 582-609 in The Sociologyof Art and Literature:A Reader,
edited by Milton C. Albrecht,James H. Barnett, and Mason Griff.New York:
Praeger.
GRISWOLD, WENDY. 1986. RenaissanceRevivals:CityComedyand RevengeTragedyin the
LondonTheatre1576-1980. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
. 1987. "The Fabrication of Meaning." American
Journalof Soci-
ology92:1077-117.
GRISWOLD, WENDY, AND MISTY BASTIAN. "Continuitiesand Recon-
Forthcoming.
structionsin Cultural Transmission: The Case of the Nigerian Popular Romance
Novel." Poetics.
HASKELL, FRANCIS. in Art: Some Aspectsof Taste, Fashion and
1976. Rediscoveries
Collectingin Englandand France.Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress.
HEMPTON, DAVID. 1984. Methodism
and Politicsin BritishSociety1750-1850. Stanford:
Stanford UniversityPress.
HIRSCH, E. D., JR. 1967. Validityin Interpretation.
New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
JAUSS, HANS 1982. Towardan Aesthetic
ROBERT. ofReception.Translated by Timothy
Bahti. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press.
JONES, ROBERT ALUN. 1977. "On Understanding a Sociological Classic." American
JournalofSociology83:279-319.

KNOX, R. A.1950. Enthusiasm:A Chapterin theHistoryofReligionwithSpecial Reference
to theXVII and XVIII Centuries.
Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
OBIECHINA, E. N. 1967. "Transition from Oral to Literary Tradition." Presence
Africaine63:140-61.
OHMANN, CAROL, AND RICHARD OHMANN. 1976. "Reviewers, Critics, and The Catcher
in theRye." CriticalInquiry3:15-37.
RADWAY, JANICE. 1984. Reading the Romance.Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
RAGSDALE, KATHERYN. 1986. "Reading and Reformulation: Western Detective
Stories in Meiji Japan." Master's thesis,Department of Sociology, Universityof
Chicago.
ROSMARIN, ADENA. 1985. The Powerof Genre.Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota
Press.
SCHMIDT, NANCY. 1965. "An Anthropological Analysis of Nigerian Fiction." Ph.D.
diss., Department of Anthropology,NorthwesternUniversity.
. 1970. "Nigerian Fiction and the Oral Tradition." Pp. 25-38 in
New AfricanLiteratureand theArts,vol. 2, edited by Joseph Okpaku. New York:
Crowell.
SEARLE, JOHN R. 1975. "Indirect Speech Acts." Pp. 59-82 in Syntaxand Semantics.
Vol. 3, Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan. New York:
Academic Press.
SKINNER, QUENTIN. 1969. "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas."
Historyand Theory8:3-53.
THOMPSON, E. P. 1966. The MakingoftheEnglish WorkingClass. New York: Vintage.
WUTHNOW, Forthcoming. Meaning and Moral Order:Explorationsin Cultural
ROBERT.
Analysis.Berkeley: Universityof California Press.


A Methodological Framework For The Sociology of Culture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Methodological Framework For The Sociology of Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Methodological Framework for the Sociology of Culture

Author(s): Wendy Griswold

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

Drawing on analytictechniquesfromthehumanities and socialsciences,I

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

culturalexperiencesof social groupsand categories.Afterdeveloping a

An assumed gap betweenthe "two cultures"of the sciencesand

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

' Robert Wuthnow(forthcoming) arguesthat since the subjectiveis ulti-

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

is temptingto reduce the culturaldata to a singlepertinentdimension

propertyof specifiablesocialcategoriesand groups,whichare empirically accessi-

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

5 The actual contractbetweenPiero and his clientfor the Baptismno

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

Christ'sbaptism,even thoughnot foundin biblical account; (16) other

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

intentions,as constructedby the analyst, are not altered by the

As in the Donne example,a focuson intentionusually involves

(1962) performative speech act: Its very existence is supposed to performsome

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

(implied) readerin at least the firstsix of the above thesesillustratesthe

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

second,fifth, and sixththesesparticularlywell,revealsthe instabilityof

7Here, I am adopting only part of Hirsch's distinctionbetween meaning

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

intended meaning, as Baxandall does, and significance to refer to a relationship

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

- Baxandall uses billiard balls as a metaphorof influence:An agent

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

or redefine,aspects of thisculturalobject. Such a procedurecould be

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

For the analyst, comprehensionmeans understandingthose

9 Interpretive analyses, unlike institutional analyses have attempted to

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

between comprehensionand genre. In some respects,the two are

10For precision's sake, one should avoid thinkingof an agent as a mediator.

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

tion by postulatingboundariesthatwill allow him to perceivecommon

While comprehensionrefersto the genericspecificationof the

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

Cultural - Structures Mental Social group's- Class Other

Pascal's - Tragic vision- Extreme - Noblesse

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

is particularlyinterestedin the local cognitivestylesthat give meaning

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

Several featuresof this frameworkrequire comment.First (moving

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

objects are distinguishedfromtheirsurroundingsocioeconomiccontext

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

Cultural-Genre: Agent(tip), -Mentality- Matrixof-Social and -Social and

A culturalanalysisthatpays attentionto the elementsand connections

A methodologicalframework is only that. It does not constitute

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

This content downloaded from 213.181.229.218 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:12:37 AM

fromhis own writingsand actions outweighsevidence fromthose of

12 Ragsdale (1986) has noted a similar pattern in the importation of the