THE CONCEPT OF SYMBOLIC BOUNDARIES – CHARACTERISTICS AND SCOPE
Abstract
Although it is one of the building blocks of sociological analyses, the concept of symbolic boundaries has been undergoing a second revival over the last twenty-odd years. Following in the footsteps of theoretical and empirical work by Michèle Lamont, researchers have been rethinking the potential of symbolic boundaries for additional fleshing out and elaborating in areas that have proven to be most productive. In general, its development moves in both significant scientific directions, toward enabling the transformation of basic premises into a sequence of research questions and linking them to appropriate methods, so as to include a significant portion of social reality empirically. Additionally, there are also theoretical aspirations to expand it from within, developing different aspects of it on an abstract level so as to establish a base categorical schema that would either serve to synthetize existing literature or, even more importantly, to focus further research. Of equal importance is also the attempt to compensate for the limitations of the concept of symbolic boundaries (Lamont 1992) by combining it with another, believed by its advocates to be complementary to the former, that of social relationships (“double objectivity” – Bourdieu and Wacquant 2013), in order to simultaneously examine both the social and mental structures of social differences and social stratification.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alexander, Jeffrey C. “Citizen and Enemy as Symbolic Classification: On the Polarizing Discourse of Civil Society.” in Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by Michèle Lamont and Marcel Fournier, 289–308. Chicago: Chicago Univerisity Press, 1992.
Almeling, Rene. “Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material.” American Sociological Review 72 (2007): 319–340. doi:10.1177/000312240707200301
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage, 1994[1970].
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction. A Social Critique of Judgement of Taste. Cambridge USA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Masculine Domination. Cambridge: Polity, 2001.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups”. Social Science Information 24, 2 (1985): 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901885024002001.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc Wacquant. “Symbolic Capital and Social Classes”. Journal of Classical Sociology 13, 2 (2013): 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X12468736
Brubaker, Sarah Jane, and Heather E. Dillaway. “Medicalization, Natural Childbirth and Birthing Experiences”. Sociology Compass 3, 1 (2009): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00183.x
Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
Gieryn, Thomas F. “Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48, 6 (1983): 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
Goffman, Erving. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Jarness, Vegard, and Magne Paalgard Flemmen. “A Struggle on Two Fronts: Boundary Drawing in the Lower Region of the Social Space and the Symbolic Market for ‘down-to-earthness’.” The British Journal of Sociology 70, 1 (2019): 166–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12345
Jarness, Vegard. “Cultural vs Economic Capital: Symbolic Boundaries within the Middle Class”. Sociology 51, 2 (2015): 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515596909
Jarness, Vegard. “Viewpoints and Points of View: Situating Symbolic Boundary Drawing in Social Space”. European Societies 20, 3 (2018): 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2017.1371317
Jarness, Vegard. Class, Status, Closure: The Petropolis and Cultural Life. Bergen: University of Bergen, 2013.
Lamont, Michèle and Virág Molnár. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences”. Annual Review of Sociology 28 (2002): 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
Lamont, Michèle, and Marcel Fournier, eds. Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Lamont, Michèle. “Symbolic boundaries”. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser, and Paul B. Baltes, 15341–15347. Oxford: Elsevier, 2001.
Lamont, Michèle. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper- Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Lamont, Michèle. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration. New York: Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, and Russell Sage Foundation, 2000.
Lamont, M., & Thévenot, L. (Eds.) Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press and Paris: Presses de la Maison des Sciences de I’Homme, 2000.
Pachucki, Mark, Sabrina Pendergrass, and Michèle Lamont. “Boundary Processes: Recent Theoretical Developments and New Contributions”. Poetics 35 (2007): 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2007.10.001
Tyler, Imogen. “Chav Mum Chav Scum”. Feminist Media Studies 8 (2008): 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770701824779
Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 [1899].
Wacquant, Loic. “Symbolic Power and Group-making: On Pierre Bourdieu’s Reframing of Class”. Journal of Clasical Sociology 13, 2 (2013): 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X12468737
Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Berkley: University of California Press, 1978.
Wolfe, Alan. “Democracy versus Sociology: Boundaries and Their Political Consequences”. In Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by Lamont, Michèle, and Marcel Fournier, 309–326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/FUPSPH2202061K
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN 1820-8495 (Print)
ISSN 1820-8509 (Online)