An “amorphous mist”? The problem of measurement in the study of culture (original) (raw)

Abstract

Sociological studies of culture have made significant progress on conceptual clarification of the concept, while remaining comparatively quiescent on questions of measurement. This study empirically examines internal conflicts (or “infighting”), a ubiquitous phenomenon in political organizing, to propose a “resinous culture framework” that holds promise for redirection. The data comprise 674 newspaper articles and more than 100 archival documents that compare internal dissent across two previously unstudied lesbian and gay Marches on Washington. Analyses reveal that activists use infighting as a vehicle to engage in otherwise abstract definitional debates that provide concrete answers to questions such as who are we and what do we want. The mechanism that enables infighting to concretize these cultural concerns is its coupling with fairly mundane and routine organizational tasks. This mechanism affords one way to release the culture concept, understood here as collective self-definitions, from being “an amorphous, indescribable mist which swirls around society members,” as it was once provocatively described.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 2

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Fig. 3

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Vivid evidence stems from Cultural Sociology, “the first journal [launched in 2007] explicitly to be dedicated to the sociological comprehension of cultural matters,” as stated on the American Sociological Association’s website.
  2. It is not possible in the space of this article to provide a comprehensive review of the culture concept. For summary statements, see (DiMaggio 1997; Griswold 1994; Kaufman 2004; Mohr 1998; Mukerji and Schudson 1986; Peterson 1979; Wuthnow and Witten 1988).
  3. The study of “meaning” or how people make sense of their world, has from the earliest days been the domain of a distinctively cultural sociology, although how much emphasis to place on it and how to go about studying it have been matters of ongoing debate (see Griswold 1992 for review).
  4. Strategies delineate a desirable course of action by identifying objectives and goals, means and ends. Relevant concerns include what members want and how to obtain it (Gamson 1975; McAdam 1982). Identities denote agreed upon definitions of group membership. To make this systematic, I emphasize how the social category “gay” was elaborated (identity catness) and how different contenders who claimed membership were connected (identity netness) (Melucci 1995; Taylor 1989; Tilly 1978; White 1992)
  5. A common attack on the social scientific inquiry of culture targets “the straw person called the ‘positivist’” (MacCoun 2003). Social scientists return the favor and criticize humanistic approaches to the study of culture as “highly abstract verbal theories with little predictive power” (Cook 1985: 34). Although I believe meaning versus quantitative measurement is ultimately a false opposition (see also Mohr 1998), I nonetheless employ a three-part integrative strategy: I use multimethod design, multiple theoretical frameworks, and ground my observations in specific historical events (c.f., Cook 1985: 21–22).
  6. Much of the social movements literature conflates infighting with organizational defections, a distinct phenomena in which groups fail at conflict resolution, that is, in which there is a “proper break-up of the group” (Simmel 1955: 48–49). This marks defections as analytically distinct from infighting. See (Balser 1997; Mushaben 1989; Stern et al. 1971; Zald and Ash 1966; Zald and McCarthy 1980).
  7. See (Ghaziani 2008) for a detailed description of the data set, coding, and analysis. Note there is persisting debate in the social movements literature on the use of newspaper accounts (Earl et al. 2004). This literature councils against using such data to construct a list of time-varying protest events or to assert social-psychological arguments (McAdam 1982), neither of which affects the analytic strategy of the present study.
  8. “Gay Community News: 30 Years Later,” by Scott A. Giordano. Bay Windows, January 16, 2003.
  9. “Why a signer of the Ad Hoc Call is marching in the MMOW.” Windy City Times, April 6, 2000, p. 13.
  10. “Lessons from the March.” Windy City Times, May 27, 1993, p. 12.
  11. “Pulling through in a big way,” by Steve Greenberg. Washington Blade, October 11, 1987, p. 7.
  12. Altman, Lawrence K. 1981 (July 3). “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexual Men.” New York Times A20.
  13. Karposi’s Sarcoma and Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia Among Homosexual Men—New York City and California. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1981 July 4; 30: 305–308.
  14. “Pulling through in a big way.”
  15. “Civil Disobedience: Are We Entering a New Militant Stage in the Struggle for Gay Rights?” Advocate, September 29, 1987, p. 48. Reported by Mark Vandervelden.
  16. “Pulling through in a big way.”
  17. “March on Washington,” Advocate, August 18, 1987, p. 11.
  18. “Civil Disobedience: Are We Entering a New Militant Stage in the Struggle for Gay Rights?”
  19. “A call to bisexuals,” by Lucy Friedland and Liz Nania. The Washington Blade, September 25, 1987, p. B-13. A note on style: Italicized items are those that most closely speak to the theoretical concerns of the study.
  20. “Bi’s, Gays struggle for the same thing.” By Tracy S. Dryden. Washington Blade, November 6, 1987, p. B-17.
  21. “Bi’s march on Washington.” Gay Community News, September 6–12, 1987, p. 4.
  22. “Bitter Debate Opens Nat’l March Planning,” Gay Community News, December 7–13, 1986, p. 1, 3. For a discussion of why coalition building was not a viable strategy in the first march, see (Ghaziani 2008).
  23. “Bitter Debate Opens Nat’l March Planning.”
  24. “National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, October 11, 1987,” p. 34 (Official Program). Primary source material, Gerber Hart Library, Chicago, IL.
  25. “Notes from the People of Color Caucus at the National Conference for the March on Washington November 14–16, 1986.” Folder: 1987 L & G March/Jan. L.A. Meeting. Box: 1987 March on Washington National Committee—Record. Box 1. GLBT Historical Society of Northern California, San Francisco, CA.
  26. “List of March demands is a lampoon of itself,” The Washington Blade, October 9, 1987, p. B-15.
  27. “March on Washington,” Advocate, August 18, 1987, p. 11.
  28. “Notes from the People of Color Caucus at the National Conference for the March on Washington November 14–16, 1986.” Signed by Jaime Credle. Folder: “1987 L & G March/Jan. L.A. Meeting.” Box: “1987 March on Washington National Committee Record, Box 1.” GLBT Historical Society of Northern California.
  29. “The Gay ‘90s.” Entertainment Weekly September 8, 1995.
  30. “Washington—by Way of Stonewall.” The New York Times, April 27, 1993, page A20.
  31. “First March on Washington Meeting Proves Contentious.” Windy City Times, January 30, 1992, p. 4. See also “1993 March on Washington National Steering Committee Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, January 18–19, 1992, Meeting Summary.” Personal Papers of Billy Hileman.
  32. “National march adds the word ‘bi’ to official title.” Washington Blade, January 31, 1992.
  33. “Major Mistake,” by Dave Reyman. Washington Blade, February 14, 1992, p. 31.
  34. “Fed up,” written by B.G. Johnson. Washington Blade, February 21, 1992, p. 31.
  35. “Expand definition,” written by Loraine Hutchins. Washington Blade, February 28, 1992, p. 31.
  36. “Same struggle,” written by Debra R. Kolodny. Washington Blade, February 28, 1992, p. 31.
  37. “A clear majority,” The Washington Blade, May 29, 1992, p. 33.
  38. “D.C. march committee says it can’t endorse Dallas platform.” The Washington Blade, May 29, 1992, p. 11. See also “D.C. March Committee Urges Platform Rescission,” Windy City Times, June 18, 1992, p. 10.
  39. “Political Correctness Endangers March on Washington.” Windy City Times, December 3, 1992, p. 19.
  40. “A Disaster in the Making.” Windy City Times, December 10, 1992, p. 13. Unauthored Editorial.
  41. “What Are We Marching For?” Windy City Times, June 4, 1992, p. 14. Written by Paul Varnell.
  42. “Political Correctness Endangers March on Washington.”
  43. “A Disaster in the Making.”
  44. “...But Don’t Risk the Movement.” Windy City Times Editorial, March 25, 1993, p. 13.
  45. “1993 March on Washington Finalizes Agenda, Executive Committee meets to complete Platform Planks and Items.” Press release dated June 9, 1992. Folder: March on Washington—April 1993 IV, the ONE Institute.
  46. “A clear majority,” The Washington Blade, May 29, 1992, p. 33.
  47. “1993 March on Washington Finalizes Agenda.”
  48. “D.C. March: ‘Historic’ Coalition Forged.” Windy City Times, March 4, 1993, p. 1. Reported by David Olson.
  49. “Support the March...” Windy City Times, March 25, 1993, p. 13. Unauthored Editorial.
  50. “Community Unites Around D.C. March.” Windy City Times, February 4, 1993, p. 4. Reported by David Olson.
  51. “Going with the Community’s Flow.” Windy City Times, February 4, 1993, p. 12. Written by Joseph Schuman.
  52. “Eating Our Own,” Advocate, August 13, 1992; “Pride and Prejudice,” Advocate, February 9, 1993, p. 6; “Why I Hated the March on Washington,” Undated (but referencing the 1993 march); “Shredding the Rainbow,” Frontiers, May 28, 1999, p. 63; “The longing of the Age of Aquarius,” Advocate, January 18, 2000, p. 7; “Cease fire!” Advocate, February 15, 2000, p. 36.
  53. “March moves forward on misguided course,” by Nadine Smith. The Washington Blade, April 17, 1998, p. 33.
  54. Gay Community News 24(1), 1998, pp. 24–25.
  55. “A Gay Rights Rally Over Gains and Goals,” by Robin Toner. The New York Times, May 1, 2000, p. A14.
  56. “Cease Fire!” by Richard Goldstein. Advocate, February 15, 2000, pp. 36, 39–40.
  57. “Eating Our Own.”
  58. “Cease fire!”

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by MacArthur Research Support (Department of Sociology, Northwestern University), the Dispute Resolution Research Center (Kellogg School of Management), and the Northwestern University Research Grants Committee. Thanks (in alphabetical order) to Elizabeth Armstrong, Ellen Berrey, Gary Alan Fine, Joshua Gamson, Wendy Griswold, Aldon Morris, Hayagreeva Rao, and Brian Uzzi, along with participants of the Culture and Society Workshop at Northwestern University, the Princeton University Society of Fellows, and Editors and reviewers of Theory and Society for their insightful critiques.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
    Amin Ghaziani

Corresponding author

Correspondence toAmin Ghaziani.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ghaziani, A. An “amorphous mist”? The problem of measurement in the study of culture.Theor Soc 38, 581–612 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-009-9096-2

Download citation

Keywords