Complete summary for ST4
Inhoud
Week 1 – The Durkheimian legacy: culture as classification...................................................................1
Week 2 – Structuralism and semiotics....................................................................................................2
Week 3 – Culture in action......................................................................................................................4
Week 4 – Culture and cognition..............................................................................................................7
Week 5 – Field theory.............................................................................................................................9
Week 1 – The Durkheimian legacy: culture as
classification
Lamont
Vertical cultural boundaries: taste, high culture, language, intellectualism. What French men
value in friends and people they respect is familiarity and competence in intellectual matters >
going to the theatre, speaking the language in a right way.
Horizontal cultural boundaries: about successfulness in the socioeconomic sphere = someone
who has done well, has a strong work ethic and morality. American men don’t care/don’t feel
that it is important that their friends are intellectual or in high culture. But they do care about
moral and socioeconomic boundaries
Symbolic boundaries (Lamont): ‘symbolic boundaries are conceptual distinctions made by social
actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space’ > in this instance, how
to define people into different categories (respected or not respected). Symbolic boundaries are
cultural dimensions, and help to categorize things.
Why are social boundaries objectified forms of social differences?/how can symbolic
boundaries have effect in real life?: ‘social boundaries are objectified forms of social differences
manifested in unequal access to and unequal distribution of resources (material and nonmaterial)
and social opportunities. They are also revealed in stable behavioural patterns of association’ > it
can have important consequences for they way social life is organized: you hire people on the
way they appear to you and the things you respect of them (e.g. if they have morality)
Durkheim
Totemism: belief and practice whereby groups identify themselves with a certain sacred object
(mostly an animal) > an example of how people use animal distinctions to express and to give
meaning to social structures and to social and oppositions. It’s a way of meaning making, a way to
think
Totem: a central identification marker of these tribes. The totem is special, sacred and respected,
and has a moral force over them > external force that can inspire, give power or punish. It plays a
double function = is an emblem of the group and a symbol of the sacred (external force).
Examples of totems: wristbands from festivals like LowLands, sports merchandising, tattoos and
photoalbums.
What is the resemblance/difference between empiricist, rationalists and Durkhiems view on
categories of understanding?:
, 1. Empiricist = we learn categories through experiences (are not necessary because they are
learnd)
2. Rationalist = categories are innate and appriori (they are innate because we cannot think
outside the categories). But how can they vary then?
3. Durkheim = they are learned and necessary because these are social concepts, collective
representations. They are imprinted on us through our social being which we cannot escape >
the group is what makes us think along these lines > group thinking
Structuralism: a theoretical approach that sees elements of human culture and society as part of
a larger, overarching system or structure. It posits that these structures shape and influence
individual behaviours, beliefs, and social practices. It can be divided into the French (cultural
structures) and British (social structures) tradition
Frech structuralism/cultural structures (Levi-Strauss): Influenced by Strauss. The idea that
cultural phenomena (myths, language, rituals, etc.) can be understood by uncovering the
underlying structures that govern them > cultural classification. To understand how cultural
systems classify and make sense of the world.
Social structure is not observable, it the realization of cultural codes/mental models > culture
is a system of signs > e.g. observing myths for finding universal structures.
Binary oppositions, symbolic contamination and thinking with animals
Cultural classification: Cultures classify and organize the world. It looks at how different societies
use binary oppositions (e.g., sacred/profane, nature/culture) to make sense of their world >
Strauss analyses myths to show that beneath the surface differences of cultures, there are
universal structures of human thought that shape how we categorize and interpret the world.
British structuralism/social structures (Radcliff Brown): Focuses on the relationships and
interactions between individuals within a society > social network analysis. To understand how
social structures influence behavior and social dynamics.
Social structure is observable, we cannot observe culture
Social network analysis: maps and analyzes the patterns of relationships and social ties among
individuals or groups to understand the structure of society and social ties.
Week 2 – Structuralism and semiotics
What are (natural) distinctions that are good to think with?:
1. Animals (totemism and classification)
2. Power relationships (up/down metaphor and vertical code) for sex, status differences and
winners vs. losers
3. Space (homology/homologous binary oppositions) for emotions (up or down), social class,
rituals in interaction (bending/lowering eyes)
Homology/homologous binary opposition: when two binary oppositions are being mapped over
each other, when there is an expression of an analogy between them. E.g. when high and low are
being mapped over good and bad, so high means good and low means bad > homology.
Symbolic contamination: Symbols can start to refer to each other, to a context where it is
completely unrelated. Symbolic contamination is the heritage of French structuralism (Saussure &
Strauss). Can happen with symbols, but also for names.
Saussure (language as symbolic system)
The arbitrariness of the sign: there is no necessary relation between signifier and signified.
Sign(ifier): the word, the letters, the sound we make; signified: the concept or meaning. (except
for onomatopes and iconic signs)
Onomatopes: words that mimic sounds (miauw and koekoek) are not arbitrary.
Inhoud
Week 1 – The Durkheimian legacy: culture as classification...................................................................1
Week 2 – Structuralism and semiotics....................................................................................................2
Week 3 – Culture in action......................................................................................................................4
Week 4 – Culture and cognition..............................................................................................................7
Week 5 – Field theory.............................................................................................................................9
Week 1 – The Durkheimian legacy: culture as
classification
Lamont
Vertical cultural boundaries: taste, high culture, language, intellectualism. What French men
value in friends and people they respect is familiarity and competence in intellectual matters >
going to the theatre, speaking the language in a right way.
Horizontal cultural boundaries: about successfulness in the socioeconomic sphere = someone
who has done well, has a strong work ethic and morality. American men don’t care/don’t feel
that it is important that their friends are intellectual or in high culture. But they do care about
moral and socioeconomic boundaries
Symbolic boundaries (Lamont): ‘symbolic boundaries are conceptual distinctions made by social
actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space’ > in this instance, how
to define people into different categories (respected or not respected). Symbolic boundaries are
cultural dimensions, and help to categorize things.
Why are social boundaries objectified forms of social differences?/how can symbolic
boundaries have effect in real life?: ‘social boundaries are objectified forms of social differences
manifested in unequal access to and unequal distribution of resources (material and nonmaterial)
and social opportunities. They are also revealed in stable behavioural patterns of association’ > it
can have important consequences for they way social life is organized: you hire people on the
way they appear to you and the things you respect of them (e.g. if they have morality)
Durkheim
Totemism: belief and practice whereby groups identify themselves with a certain sacred object
(mostly an animal) > an example of how people use animal distinctions to express and to give
meaning to social structures and to social and oppositions. It’s a way of meaning making, a way to
think
Totem: a central identification marker of these tribes. The totem is special, sacred and respected,
and has a moral force over them > external force that can inspire, give power or punish. It plays a
double function = is an emblem of the group and a symbol of the sacred (external force).
Examples of totems: wristbands from festivals like LowLands, sports merchandising, tattoos and
photoalbums.
What is the resemblance/difference between empiricist, rationalists and Durkhiems view on
categories of understanding?:
, 1. Empiricist = we learn categories through experiences (are not necessary because they are
learnd)
2. Rationalist = categories are innate and appriori (they are innate because we cannot think
outside the categories). But how can they vary then?
3. Durkheim = they are learned and necessary because these are social concepts, collective
representations. They are imprinted on us through our social being which we cannot escape >
the group is what makes us think along these lines > group thinking
Structuralism: a theoretical approach that sees elements of human culture and society as part of
a larger, overarching system or structure. It posits that these structures shape and influence
individual behaviours, beliefs, and social practices. It can be divided into the French (cultural
structures) and British (social structures) tradition
Frech structuralism/cultural structures (Levi-Strauss): Influenced by Strauss. The idea that
cultural phenomena (myths, language, rituals, etc.) can be understood by uncovering the
underlying structures that govern them > cultural classification. To understand how cultural
systems classify and make sense of the world.
Social structure is not observable, it the realization of cultural codes/mental models > culture
is a system of signs > e.g. observing myths for finding universal structures.
Binary oppositions, symbolic contamination and thinking with animals
Cultural classification: Cultures classify and organize the world. It looks at how different societies
use binary oppositions (e.g., sacred/profane, nature/culture) to make sense of their world >
Strauss analyses myths to show that beneath the surface differences of cultures, there are
universal structures of human thought that shape how we categorize and interpret the world.
British structuralism/social structures (Radcliff Brown): Focuses on the relationships and
interactions between individuals within a society > social network analysis. To understand how
social structures influence behavior and social dynamics.
Social structure is observable, we cannot observe culture
Social network analysis: maps and analyzes the patterns of relationships and social ties among
individuals or groups to understand the structure of society and social ties.
Week 2 – Structuralism and semiotics
What are (natural) distinctions that are good to think with?:
1. Animals (totemism and classification)
2. Power relationships (up/down metaphor and vertical code) for sex, status differences and
winners vs. losers
3. Space (homology/homologous binary oppositions) for emotions (up or down), social class,
rituals in interaction (bending/lowering eyes)
Homology/homologous binary opposition: when two binary oppositions are being mapped over
each other, when there is an expression of an analogy between them. E.g. when high and low are
being mapped over good and bad, so high means good and low means bad > homology.
Symbolic contamination: Symbols can start to refer to each other, to a context where it is
completely unrelated. Symbolic contamination is the heritage of French structuralism (Saussure &
Strauss). Can happen with symbols, but also for names.
Saussure (language as symbolic system)
The arbitrariness of the sign: there is no necessary relation between signifier and signified.
Sign(ifier): the word, the letters, the sound we make; signified: the concept or meaning. (except
for onomatopes and iconic signs)
Onomatopes: words that mimic sounds (miauw and koekoek) are not arbitrary.
