Sociological Theory 4: Weekly
Reading Summary
Contents
Overarching themes............................................................................................ 32
Week 1: Culture as Classification Systems
Michèle Lamont (1992) – Money, Morals, and Manners
Lamont investigates how upper-middle-class men in the United States and
France draw symbolic boundaries – the conceptual distinctions by which they
categorize people and signal status differences. Her central question is what
criteria these elites use to differentiate themselves (moral character, cultural
taste, wealth, etc.) and how those criteria vary by national context. In defining
terms, Lamont distinguishes symbolic boundaries from social boundaries
(actual group divisions and exclusions that emerge when symbolic distinctions
become widely accepted). She also draws on Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital
(knowledge, tastes, and credentials that confer status) but expands it to consider
moral capital – esteem earned through integrity and good character, a concept
she finds particularly salient in the American context.
Lamont’s comparative findings highlight a contrast: American upper-middle-
class men place greater emphasis on moral qualities and personal character
when evaluating others, whereas French upper-middle-class men place more
emphasis on cultural refinement and intellectual sophistication. For example,
American interviewees often praise individuals who are honest, hardworking,
humble, and “authentic,” and they are quick to criticize those among the wealthy
who lack moral integrity or empathy. In France, by contrast, interviewees more
readily esteem those with impeccable taste, broad education, and intellect –
displaying what they consider cultivated manners – and they are more prone to
dismiss others as ignorant or vulgar if they lack cultural refinement. Both groups
agree that sheer wealth is not a sufficient basis for esteem, but they critique it
differently: Americans are suspicious of wealth that lacks moral grounding
(viewing “money without morality” as unworthy), while French respondents more
often critique displays of vulgarity or poor taste rather than wealth itself. Lamont
also observes differences in tolerance: American elites tend to be culturally
inclusive (more accepting of popular or mass culture) but draw strict moral lines
against behaviors like arrogance or dishonesty, whereas French elites are more
culturally exclusive (guarding high culture from “lowbrow” influence) yet may
tolerate personal quirks so long as one demonstrates intellect and style.
Importantly, Lamont ties these national differences to broader historical and
institutional repertoires. The American moral emphasis is traced to a cultural
heritage of Protestant ethic, individualism, and populist anti-elitism. U.S.
interviewees valorize hard work and sincerity, reflecting a national ethos that
suspiciously regards aristocratic pretension. In France, the aristocratic and
,intellectual legacy (including a centralized educational system steeped in
philosophy and literature) has cultivated an enduring respect for high culture as
a marker of worth. These contexts mean that what counts as a high-status
marker differs: an American businessman might stress humble origins and
ethical behavior as badges of honor, while a French professional might signal
status by referencing literary knowledge or refined taste. Lamont points out that
institutions like schools and media reinforce these patterns: for instance, the
French grande école system and intellectual media prize cultural sophistication,
whereas American higher education and media are more vocational or market-
oriented, valuing practical success. Such structures disseminate different kinds
of cultural capital in each country, explaining why moral boundaries are more
pronounced in the U.S. and cultural boundaries more pronounced in France.
Theoretical contribution: Lamont’s study extends Bourdieu’s theory of elite
distinction by demonstrating that how people draw boundaries is not universal
but varies by national culture. Where Bourdieu emphasized cultural capital in the
abstract, Lamont shows that American elites grant equal or greater status to
moral capital, complicating the idea that one hierarchy of “legitimate taste”
prevails everywhere. In other words, cultural practices are not reducible solely to
class position; they are mediated by national values and historical context. By
introducing moral capital as a parallel form of status currency (esteem earned
through being principled or compassionate), Lamont highlights that elites in
different societies compete and distinguish themselves on different terrains – one
primarily moral, one primarily cultural. Ultimately, her work underlines how
culture becomes structure: the repeated use of symbolic boundaries (e.g. judging
someone as morally worthy or culturally refined) solidifies into group divisions
and inequalities over time. This foundational insight – that symbolic
classifications (moral vs. immoral, highbrow vs. lowbrow) can harden into social
boundaries – is key for understanding the rest of the course. Lamont shows that
culture is a system of classification that both reflects and reproduces inequality,
varying across contexts rather than being a single monolithic code.
Week 2: Culture as Texts, Myths, and
Narratives
Clifford Geertz (1973) – “Thick Description: Toward an
Interpretive Theory of Culture”
Geertz advocates an interpretive approach to studying culture, arguing that
culture is not a force or a thing but a web of meanings in which humans are
suspended. He begins by explaining what he famously calls “thick
description.” A thin description is a bare-bones account of behavior (for
example, simply noting that an eye winked). A thick description by contrast
includes the context and meaning of that behavior (e.g. recognizing that a wink
might signal a shared secret or be a parody of someone else’s wink). Geertz
illustrates this with Gilbert Ryle’s example: the same eye twitch could be
involuntary, a conspiratorial wink, or someone burlesquing a wink – identical
motions with entirely different meanings. The task of cultural analysis, Geertz
,contends, is to interpret such meanings – to figure out the “stories” people tell
themselves through their actions.
Geertz defines culture as a text of significance that can be read and
interpreted. He suggests that all human action is like a gigantic manuscript of
symbols, and the role of the anthropologist (or sociologist of culture) is akin to
that of a literary critic: to decipher the layers of meaning within those symbols.
This perspective emphasizes that culture is public (the meanings are shared in
society, not just private ideas in people’s heads) and that understanding culture
requires deep contextual knowledge. Geertz explicitly rejects earlier
anthropological models that sought general laws or treated culture as a self-
contained system (as in functionalism or strict structuralism). Instead, he
portrays cultures as messy, symbolic systems that cannot be decoded by
universal rules – each culture is a unique configuration of meanings that must be
understood on its own terms. He famously wrote that we should seek “not an
experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of
meaning.” In practice, Geertz’s method means thickly describing rituals,
stories, and social practices to reveal what they signify to participants. For
example, in his fieldwork he analyzed events like Balinese cockfights as cultural
texts rich with symbolism about status and masculinity (though that particular
example is detailed in another essay, it exemplifies thick description). Geertz
also notes that ethnographic writings are themselves “fictions” in the sense of
constructed accounts (not that they are false, but that the researcher creatively
writes an interpretation). The credibility of ethnography comes from how well it
conveys the native point of view and interprets the webs of significance, not from
adhering to a positivist laboratory model. Overall, Geertz’s contribution is to shift
the study of culture toward meaning and interpretation: Culture isn’t an
external structure that mechanically causes behavior; it’s the context that gives
behavior its significance. This interpretive turn influenced sociology by
highlighting that to explain social action, we must grasp the symbolic meanings
people attach to their actions – akin to reading a complex text rather than
measuring a force.
Will Wright (1975) – Sixguns and Society: A Structural
Study of the Western
Wright approaches culture from a structuralist perspective, treating American
Western films as modern myths with an underlying narrative code. His analysis
applies Claude Lévi-Strauss’s ideas about mythic structure (binary oppositions
and story resolution) to the Western movie genre. The core question Wright
asks is: how do Westerns symbolically resolve fundamental tensions in American
culture? He observes that Western films repeatedly stage a conflict between the
forces of chaos and order – typically a lawless threat versus a heroic figure – and
through this narrative, they address contradictions like individualism vs.
community and nature vs. civilization.
Wright identifies a common mythic structure in the classical Western: (A)
Society is threatened by evil or chaos (e.g. bandits terrorize a town); (B) A hero
emerges from outside society – often an isolated, rugged individual – to confront
the threat; (C) The hero defeats the evil, restoring safety; (D) The hero then
either integrates into the community or more often rides off alone once order is
restored. This storyline encodes binary oppositions at the heart of the myth:
, civilization versus wilderness, law versus personal freedom, insider versus
outsider. For example, the hero (outsider with a personal code of honor)
represents individualism and rough justice, yet he steps in to save the
community, thus reasserting social order before returning to solitude. This way,
the Western myth cleverly balances Americans’ admiration for the lone individual
and their need for communal stability – the hero embodies both, for a moment.
Wright points out the symbolic resolution: society’s values triumph (order over
chaos), but without permanently domesticating the individualist hero (who
remains free), thus satisfying both ideals.
Furthermore, Wright charts a later evolution in the genre from the “classical
Western” to the “professional Western.” In the professional Western
(exemplified by films like The Wild Bunch or The Magnificent Seven), the hero is
no longer a complete loner but part of a team or an institution (a posse, the
army, etc.), and the conflicts often come from within society (competing values
or corrupted institutions) rather than an external outlaw threat. The hero in these
stories might be a hired gun with a contract or a code shared with a group,
introducing moral ambiguity (is he fighting for justice or just for pay?). Wright
interprets this shift as reflecting changes in American society: from a frontier
ethos of lone pioneers to a more complex, bureaucratic world where teamwork
and institutions matter. The myth adjusts to new contradictions – for instance, in
a modern setting, the individual vs. system tension comes to the fore. In these
later Westerns, heroes often grapple with compromised institutions or internal
moral dilemmas, suggesting that American culture was wrestling with
disenchantment of institutions in the post-frontier, post-1960s era.
Through these film analyses, Wright demonstrates that myths are a form of
societal problem-solving: Westerns repeatedly enact scenarios that
symbolically resolve Americans’ ambivalence about authority and freedom. The
lone cowboy restores law and order but departs before he becomes part of “the
establishment,” thereby preserving his individual purity – an imaginary
reconciliation of independence and community. He notes that even as Westerns
changed, they still mediated core values (the rise of “professional” teams shows
a society negotiating the value of collective action versus the older lone hero
ideal). Theoretical significance: Wright’s work exemplifies a structuralist
cultural analysis outside of mythology or ritual – he applies it to popular mass
media. Like Lévi-Strauss analyzing myth, Wright looks for underlying binary
codes and narrative structures, implying that popular culture isn’t just surface
entertainment but carries deep ideological functions. His analysis complements
Geertz’s interpretive approach by focusing less on fine contextual meaning and
more on structural patterns that transcend any one film. It suggests that even
unscripted cultural products (like Hollywood Westerns) can serve a role similar to
traditional myths: they help audiences make sense of social contradictions. In
the context of this course, Wright’s study shows how narratives and stories in
culture carry symbolic codes. It also foreshadows later discussions of how
storytelling and binaries operate in society (e.g. Alexander’s civil discourse or
Yeung’s relational meanings). In short, Wright reveals culture as structured
narrative, highlighting that beneath the variety of stories, there is an orderly
logic that speaks to society’s unresolved tensions.
Reading Summary
Contents
Overarching themes............................................................................................ 32
Week 1: Culture as Classification Systems
Michèle Lamont (1992) – Money, Morals, and Manners
Lamont investigates how upper-middle-class men in the United States and
France draw symbolic boundaries – the conceptual distinctions by which they
categorize people and signal status differences. Her central question is what
criteria these elites use to differentiate themselves (moral character, cultural
taste, wealth, etc.) and how those criteria vary by national context. In defining
terms, Lamont distinguishes symbolic boundaries from social boundaries
(actual group divisions and exclusions that emerge when symbolic distinctions
become widely accepted). She also draws on Bourdieu’s idea of cultural capital
(knowledge, tastes, and credentials that confer status) but expands it to consider
moral capital – esteem earned through integrity and good character, a concept
she finds particularly salient in the American context.
Lamont’s comparative findings highlight a contrast: American upper-middle-
class men place greater emphasis on moral qualities and personal character
when evaluating others, whereas French upper-middle-class men place more
emphasis on cultural refinement and intellectual sophistication. For example,
American interviewees often praise individuals who are honest, hardworking,
humble, and “authentic,” and they are quick to criticize those among the wealthy
who lack moral integrity or empathy. In France, by contrast, interviewees more
readily esteem those with impeccable taste, broad education, and intellect –
displaying what they consider cultivated manners – and they are more prone to
dismiss others as ignorant or vulgar if they lack cultural refinement. Both groups
agree that sheer wealth is not a sufficient basis for esteem, but they critique it
differently: Americans are suspicious of wealth that lacks moral grounding
(viewing “money without morality” as unworthy), while French respondents more
often critique displays of vulgarity or poor taste rather than wealth itself. Lamont
also observes differences in tolerance: American elites tend to be culturally
inclusive (more accepting of popular or mass culture) but draw strict moral lines
against behaviors like arrogance or dishonesty, whereas French elites are more
culturally exclusive (guarding high culture from “lowbrow” influence) yet may
tolerate personal quirks so long as one demonstrates intellect and style.
Importantly, Lamont ties these national differences to broader historical and
institutional repertoires. The American moral emphasis is traced to a cultural
heritage of Protestant ethic, individualism, and populist anti-elitism. U.S.
interviewees valorize hard work and sincerity, reflecting a national ethos that
suspiciously regards aristocratic pretension. In France, the aristocratic and
,intellectual legacy (including a centralized educational system steeped in
philosophy and literature) has cultivated an enduring respect for high culture as
a marker of worth. These contexts mean that what counts as a high-status
marker differs: an American businessman might stress humble origins and
ethical behavior as badges of honor, while a French professional might signal
status by referencing literary knowledge or refined taste. Lamont points out that
institutions like schools and media reinforce these patterns: for instance, the
French grande école system and intellectual media prize cultural sophistication,
whereas American higher education and media are more vocational or market-
oriented, valuing practical success. Such structures disseminate different kinds
of cultural capital in each country, explaining why moral boundaries are more
pronounced in the U.S. and cultural boundaries more pronounced in France.
Theoretical contribution: Lamont’s study extends Bourdieu’s theory of elite
distinction by demonstrating that how people draw boundaries is not universal
but varies by national culture. Where Bourdieu emphasized cultural capital in the
abstract, Lamont shows that American elites grant equal or greater status to
moral capital, complicating the idea that one hierarchy of “legitimate taste”
prevails everywhere. In other words, cultural practices are not reducible solely to
class position; they are mediated by national values and historical context. By
introducing moral capital as a parallel form of status currency (esteem earned
through being principled or compassionate), Lamont highlights that elites in
different societies compete and distinguish themselves on different terrains – one
primarily moral, one primarily cultural. Ultimately, her work underlines how
culture becomes structure: the repeated use of symbolic boundaries (e.g. judging
someone as morally worthy or culturally refined) solidifies into group divisions
and inequalities over time. This foundational insight – that symbolic
classifications (moral vs. immoral, highbrow vs. lowbrow) can harden into social
boundaries – is key for understanding the rest of the course. Lamont shows that
culture is a system of classification that both reflects and reproduces inequality,
varying across contexts rather than being a single monolithic code.
Week 2: Culture as Texts, Myths, and
Narratives
Clifford Geertz (1973) – “Thick Description: Toward an
Interpretive Theory of Culture”
Geertz advocates an interpretive approach to studying culture, arguing that
culture is not a force or a thing but a web of meanings in which humans are
suspended. He begins by explaining what he famously calls “thick
description.” A thin description is a bare-bones account of behavior (for
example, simply noting that an eye winked). A thick description by contrast
includes the context and meaning of that behavior (e.g. recognizing that a wink
might signal a shared secret or be a parody of someone else’s wink). Geertz
illustrates this with Gilbert Ryle’s example: the same eye twitch could be
involuntary, a conspiratorial wink, or someone burlesquing a wink – identical
motions with entirely different meanings. The task of cultural analysis, Geertz
,contends, is to interpret such meanings – to figure out the “stories” people tell
themselves through their actions.
Geertz defines culture as a text of significance that can be read and
interpreted. He suggests that all human action is like a gigantic manuscript of
symbols, and the role of the anthropologist (or sociologist of culture) is akin to
that of a literary critic: to decipher the layers of meaning within those symbols.
This perspective emphasizes that culture is public (the meanings are shared in
society, not just private ideas in people’s heads) and that understanding culture
requires deep contextual knowledge. Geertz explicitly rejects earlier
anthropological models that sought general laws or treated culture as a self-
contained system (as in functionalism or strict structuralism). Instead, he
portrays cultures as messy, symbolic systems that cannot be decoded by
universal rules – each culture is a unique configuration of meanings that must be
understood on its own terms. He famously wrote that we should seek “not an
experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of
meaning.” In practice, Geertz’s method means thickly describing rituals,
stories, and social practices to reveal what they signify to participants. For
example, in his fieldwork he analyzed events like Balinese cockfights as cultural
texts rich with symbolism about status and masculinity (though that particular
example is detailed in another essay, it exemplifies thick description). Geertz
also notes that ethnographic writings are themselves “fictions” in the sense of
constructed accounts (not that they are false, but that the researcher creatively
writes an interpretation). The credibility of ethnography comes from how well it
conveys the native point of view and interprets the webs of significance, not from
adhering to a positivist laboratory model. Overall, Geertz’s contribution is to shift
the study of culture toward meaning and interpretation: Culture isn’t an
external structure that mechanically causes behavior; it’s the context that gives
behavior its significance. This interpretive turn influenced sociology by
highlighting that to explain social action, we must grasp the symbolic meanings
people attach to their actions – akin to reading a complex text rather than
measuring a force.
Will Wright (1975) – Sixguns and Society: A Structural
Study of the Western
Wright approaches culture from a structuralist perspective, treating American
Western films as modern myths with an underlying narrative code. His analysis
applies Claude Lévi-Strauss’s ideas about mythic structure (binary oppositions
and story resolution) to the Western movie genre. The core question Wright
asks is: how do Westerns symbolically resolve fundamental tensions in American
culture? He observes that Western films repeatedly stage a conflict between the
forces of chaos and order – typically a lawless threat versus a heroic figure – and
through this narrative, they address contradictions like individualism vs.
community and nature vs. civilization.
Wright identifies a common mythic structure in the classical Western: (A)
Society is threatened by evil or chaos (e.g. bandits terrorize a town); (B) A hero
emerges from outside society – often an isolated, rugged individual – to confront
the threat; (C) The hero defeats the evil, restoring safety; (D) The hero then
either integrates into the community or more often rides off alone once order is
restored. This storyline encodes binary oppositions at the heart of the myth:
, civilization versus wilderness, law versus personal freedom, insider versus
outsider. For example, the hero (outsider with a personal code of honor)
represents individualism and rough justice, yet he steps in to save the
community, thus reasserting social order before returning to solitude. This way,
the Western myth cleverly balances Americans’ admiration for the lone individual
and their need for communal stability – the hero embodies both, for a moment.
Wright points out the symbolic resolution: society’s values triumph (order over
chaos), but without permanently domesticating the individualist hero (who
remains free), thus satisfying both ideals.
Furthermore, Wright charts a later evolution in the genre from the “classical
Western” to the “professional Western.” In the professional Western
(exemplified by films like The Wild Bunch or The Magnificent Seven), the hero is
no longer a complete loner but part of a team or an institution (a posse, the
army, etc.), and the conflicts often come from within society (competing values
or corrupted institutions) rather than an external outlaw threat. The hero in these
stories might be a hired gun with a contract or a code shared with a group,
introducing moral ambiguity (is he fighting for justice or just for pay?). Wright
interprets this shift as reflecting changes in American society: from a frontier
ethos of lone pioneers to a more complex, bureaucratic world where teamwork
and institutions matter. The myth adjusts to new contradictions – for instance, in
a modern setting, the individual vs. system tension comes to the fore. In these
later Westerns, heroes often grapple with compromised institutions or internal
moral dilemmas, suggesting that American culture was wrestling with
disenchantment of institutions in the post-frontier, post-1960s era.
Through these film analyses, Wright demonstrates that myths are a form of
societal problem-solving: Westerns repeatedly enact scenarios that
symbolically resolve Americans’ ambivalence about authority and freedom. The
lone cowboy restores law and order but departs before he becomes part of “the
establishment,” thereby preserving his individual purity – an imaginary
reconciliation of independence and community. He notes that even as Westerns
changed, they still mediated core values (the rise of “professional” teams shows
a society negotiating the value of collective action versus the older lone hero
ideal). Theoretical significance: Wright’s work exemplifies a structuralist
cultural analysis outside of mythology or ritual – he applies it to popular mass
media. Like Lévi-Strauss analyzing myth, Wright looks for underlying binary
codes and narrative structures, implying that popular culture isn’t just surface
entertainment but carries deep ideological functions. His analysis complements
Geertz’s interpretive approach by focusing less on fine contextual meaning and
more on structural patterns that transcend any one film. It suggests that even
unscripted cultural products (like Hollywood Westerns) can serve a role similar to
traditional myths: they help audiences make sense of social contradictions. In
the context of this course, Wright’s study shows how narratives and stories in
culture carry symbolic codes. It also foreshadows later discussions of how
storytelling and binaries operate in society (e.g. Alexander’s civil discourse or
Yeung’s relational meanings). In short, Wright reveals culture as structured
narrative, highlighting that beneath the variety of stories, there is an orderly
logic that speaks to society’s unresolved tensions.
