Introduction - sociology of culture and sociology of religion

Sociology of Religion, Spring, 1996 by Rhys H. Williams

It is common for the introductions to edited collections to begin with a general lament over the relative neglect of their chosen topic, but note an increasing attention - perhaps "resurgence" in recent years - and then, based in part on the collected material at hand, trumpet a bright future. Several important collections in the sociology of culture follow this general path (see Crane 1994; Lamont and Fournier 1992; Mukerji and Schudson 1991).

I do not want to be an exception to this editor's prerogative, however, such a claim would not be completely honest. For several years now the sociology of culture has been expanding (reflected in the books cited above). The sociology of religion is also doing well, supporting three specialty journals, appearing regularly in general-interest sociology journals, producing important and controversial books, and now sponsoring a section in the American Sociological Association.

What has been missing from this dual resurgence has been systematic boundary-spanning, or to shift metaphors, cross-fertilization. Too often sociologists of culture ignore religion in their focus; too often sociologists of religion pursue research with specialized conceptual lenses that ignore developments in the sociology of culture. Some of this mutual boundary-maintenance is historical (Crane 1994:1) and some institutional (Mukerji and Schudson 1991:58). Whatever the case, this special issue argues that it should end. There are exciting developments in the sociology of culture about which sociologists of religion should be aware. Similarly, there are conceptual developments in the sociology of religion - and empirical examples of "religion as culture" (see Williams and Kniss 1994) - that sociologists of culture should consider more centrally.

The essays included here were developed out of a conscious effort to foster ties between the sociologies of culture and religion. The ASA's Sociology of Culture section has a "Culture and Religion Network" devoted to this task. The Burns, Hart, and Swartz essays were first delivered at a session sponsored jointly by the Association for the Sociology of Religion and the ASA's Culture Section at the Miami Beach meetings in 1993. The Dillon, Kearns, and Kniss essays were part of a panel on religion and culture at the 1994 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion-Religious Research Association meetings in Albuquerque. I want to thank Paul DiMaggio and Steve Hart for helping get those two sessions off the ground, and Joe Tamney for help in turning the papers into this special issue. I extend a special note of appreciation to the authors. Concerns with issue length left many an insight on the cutting room floor; further, they suffered the added burden imposed by the additional round of editing from the guest editor.

An Analytic Framework for Culture

Part of the recent expansion of the sociology of culture has been due to the ambiguity with which "culture" is defined. It is no longer just the sociology of Culture, focused on literature, art, and music. The sociology of culture is becoming an analytic perspective from which to tackle many different questions, as well as a collection of substantive areas. Many areas not commonly thought of as cultural, such as politics or organizations, are experiencing a surge in studies informed by culturalist perspectives.

Wuthnow (1987; Wuthnow and Witten 1988) and Griswold (1987; 1994) offer analytic frameworks for the study of culture that make several useful distinctions. Not coincidentally, I believe, these scholars take religion seriously. While they differ in emphases, both Griswold and Wuthnow suggest that the study of culture must be the understanding of context and content. Both maintain that "culture" need not be limited to the "subjective." That is, norms, value-orientations, moods, motivations, and the like may be important dimensions of culture, but they do not exhaust the concept. Symbolic producers' intentions and culture consumers' interpretations are crucial, but are only two points of a five-point analytic grid.

Beyond intentions and interpretations, an important dimension to the study of culture is the structure of the cultural object itself, be it a sermon, film, or protest demonstration. Cultural objects have an internal logic of their own, capable of making some interpretations more likely and others less so. Without going as far as linguistics' "deep structures," it is possible to get important purchase on cultural objects, and on the process of meaning-making, by focusing on the objects themselves.

Grounding analyses of intention, reception, and formal structure are the contexts in which culture is created and consumed. One part of that context is the institutional setting in which cultural objects exist. Sites provide important clues, to both participants and observers, about what cultural objects mean and how action is to be oriented. Institutional contexts also matter in that they shape actors' abilities to use, produce, manipulate, and interpret objects. Differential access to resources, such as organizational power or traditional authority, shapes interactions. Institutional differentiation also affects actors' abilities to have their definitions of situations be the ones that "count." Institutional location is thus crucial for legitimacy in symbolic contests.