Loading field map
The sociology of culture is the subfield of sociology that treats culture—the shared meanings, practices, symbols, and material objects through which people organize their lives—as an object of systematic empirical study. It asks how culture is produced, how it is distributed, how people use it, and what it does in social life. The subfield is distinct from cultural studies and anthropology in its disciplinary home and its questions, though it borrows freely from both. Its central puzzle is the relationship between culture and social structure: does culture simply reflect the organization of society, or does it help constitute that organization? The answer, most practitioners now agree, is both—but the history of the subfield is largely a series of attempts to specify exactly how.
Sociology emerged in the nineteenth century with a strong interest in the large-scale transformations of industrialization, urbanization, and secularization. Its founders were concerned with social order, inequality, and the nature of modern society. Culture entered their work mostly as a background variable: a set of shared values or a "collective conscience" that held society together, or an ideology that masked underlying material interests. In this early framing, culture was not an object of study in its own right but a derivative of social structure. The task of the sociologist was to explain social arrangements; culture was one of the things those arrangements produced.
This orientation persisted through much of the twentieth century. In the dominant functionalist tradition, culture appeared as the system of values and norms that socialized individuals into their roles and maintained social equilibrium. In the Marxist tradition, culture appeared as ideology—a set of ideas that served the interests of the ruling class and obscured the real relations of production. In both cases, culture was treated as a reflection of something more fundamental: the social system or the economic base. The question of how culture itself worked—how it was made, how it circulated, how it was interpreted—was largely left to anthropologists, literary critics, and historians.
The sociology of culture as a distinct subfield emerged when sociologists began to treat culture not as a reflection of social structure but as a social structure in its own right. This shift, which gathered force in the 1970s and 1980s, was not a single theoretical breakthrough but a convergence of several lines of work. One line came from the sociology of knowledge, which had long asked how ideas are shaped by their social contexts. Another came from the sociology of the arts, which had studied the institutions and markets that produce and distribute cultural goods. A third came from the study of social movements, which had noticed that movements depend on the cultural frames and narratives. The result was a subfield that took culture seriously as a causal force, not just an effect.
One of the earliest and most durable approaches in the sociology of culture is the production-of-culture perspective. This approach does not ask what culture means or why people believe what they believe. Instead, it asks how cultural objects—books, films, songs, artworks, scientific findings, even news stories—come into existence. The answer, in this view, is that cultural objects are produced through organized social processes: the decisions of publishers and editors, the constraints of markets and funding, the routines of creative workers, the technologies of production and distribution, the legal frameworks of copyright and censorship.
The production perspective is often associated with the work of sociologists who studied the arts and media in the 1970s, such as Howard Becker and Richard Peterson. Becker's concept of the "art world" was central: art is not the product of isolated genius but of a network of people who cooperate to make it possible—the artists, but also the dealers, critics, audiences, and suppliers. Peterson's work on the production of culture emphasized the "production of culture" as a set of constraints and opportunities that shape what gets made. The approach is deliberately agnostic about the content of culture; it treats a symphony, a television show, and a scientific paper as comparable objects that emerge from comparable organizational processes.
The production approach has been enormously influential, but it has limits. It is better at explaining why certain cultural objects exist than at explaining why they have the meanings they do. It can tell you why a particular film was made, but not why audiences respond to it in the way they do. It also tends to focus on the moment of production, leaving the longer life of a cultural object—its reception, its reinterpretation, its canonization—to other approaches. Nevertheless, the production perspective remains a central strand of the subfield, especially in the study of media, the arts, and the creative industries.
A second major approach, often called the "strong program" in cultural sociology, is a direct reaction against the treatment of culture as a reflection of social structure. Its central claim is that culture is autonomous: it has its own logic, its own internal structure, and its own causal power. The strong program is most closely associated with the sociologist Jeffrey Alexander and his collaborators, who argued in the 1980s and 1990s that sociology had treated culture as a "dependent variable" for too long. Instead, they proposed, culture should be studied as an independent variable—as a force that shapes social action in its own right.
The strong program draws heavily on the interpretive tradition in sociology, especially the work of Clifford Geertz, an anthropologist who argued that culture is a system of meanings that people use to make sense of their world. For the strong program, the task of the sociology of culture is to interpret these meanings—to understand how symbols, narratives, and rituals organize social life. The approach is particularly interested in the "cultural codes" that structure meaning: the binary oppositions (sacred/profane, pure/polluted, good/evil) that people use to make sense of their experience. It is also interested in the "cultural performances" through which these codes are enacted—rituals, ceremonies, and public events.
The strong program has been influential in the study of politics, where it has been used to explain how political actors draw on cultural narratives and symbols to mobilize support. It has also been influential in the study of social movements, where it has been used to explain how movements construct and use "collective action frames." But the strong program has its limits. Its emphasis on the autonomy of culture can lead to a neglect of the material and institutional conditions that shape cultural production. Its interpretive method is sometimes criticized as impressionistic, lacking the rigor of more systematic approaches. And its claim that culture is autonomous is a matter of ongoing debate: critics argue that culture is always embedded in relations of power and inequality, and that treating it as autonomous obscures those relations.
A third major approach in the sociology of culture is the pragmatist or practice-based approach. This approach is less a single school than a family of related positions that share a common emphasis on what people actually do with culture. It draws on the pragmatist tradition in American philosophy, particularly the work of John Dewey and William James, and on the practice theory of Pierre Bourdieu and the later work of Michel Foucault.
The practice approach begins with the observation that culture is not just a set of meanings or a system of symbols; it is also a set of practices—the habits, routines, and skills through which people live their lives. Culture is not something people have; it is something people do. This approach emphasizes the embodied, the tacit, and the taken-for-granted aspects of culture. It asks how people use culture to navigate their daily lives, to make sense of their situations, and to pursue their goals.
The most influential figure in this approach is Pierre Bourdieu, whose concept of "habitus" has become a central term in the sociology of culture. The habitus is the set of dispositions, tastes, and habits that people acquire through their social experiences, and that shape their actions in ways that are not fully conscious. Bourdieu argued that the habitus is shaped by the social position of the individual, and that it reproduces social inequality through the "cultural capital" that people accumulate. The taste, in Bourdieu's view, is not a matter of individual preference but a social marker that distinguishes one class from another. His work on the "distinction" of taste, based on a large survey of French cultural practices, remains one of the most influential studies in the subfield.
The practice approach has been criticized for its tendency to overemphasize the routine and the habitual, and for its difficulty in explaining cultural change. If culture is a set of dispositions that are deeply embedded in the individual, how does it ever change? The approach has also been criticized for its determinism: if the habitus is shaped by social position, and if it shapes action, then the individual seems to have little room for agency. But the practice approach has been enormously influential in the study of consumption, taste, and the everyday life, and it has been combined with other approaches in ways that address some of these criticisms.
The sociology of culture has also been shaped by the broader "cultural turn" in the social sciences, which began in the 1960s and 1970s and reached its peak in the 1980s and 1990s. The cultural turn was a movement across the humanities and social sciences that emphasized the importance of meaning, language, and representation in social life. In sociology, it led to a renewed interest in the study of culture, and it brought the sociology of culture into conversation with cultural studies, literary theory, and poststructuralist philosophy.
One of the most important influences of the cultural turn was the work of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, whose studies of power, knowledge, and the "discourse" had a profound impact on the sociology of culture. Foucault's work suggested that the categories we use to understand the world—madness, sexuality, crime, and the like—are not natural but are produced by the "discourses" of the social institutions. This idea was taken up by sociologists of culture, who began to study the "discursive" construction of social reality. The sociology of culture became the study of how the categories of social life are produced, contested, and changed.
The cultural turn also brought a new attention to the "reception" of culture. The study of how audiences interpret and use cultural objects, which had been a minor concern, became a major one. The reception theory of the literary critic Stuart Hall, who argued that audiences do not simply absorb the meanings of a cultural text but actively interpret it, was adopted by sociologists of culture. The study of the "active audience" became a central concern, and the sociology of culture began to pay attention to the ways in which the meaning of a cultural object is not fixed but is negotiated in the act of reception.
The cultural turn has been criticized for its tendency to the "textualism"—the treatment of all social life as if it were a text to be read. This has led to a neglect of the material and the institutional conditions of culture, and to a tendency to the "culturalism" that treats culture as the primary cause of social life. But the cultural turn has also been enormously productive, and it has left a lasting mark on the sociology of culture.
The sociology of culture today is a diverse and pluralistic subfield. It is not organized around a single paradigm or a single set of questions, but around a set of overlapping concerns and approaches. The production perspective, the strong program, the practice approach, and the cultural turn all continue to coexist, and they are often combined in the work of individual sociologists. The subfield is also characterized by a growing attention to the "materiality" of culture—the study of the objects, the technologies, and the infrastructures through which culture is produced and consumed. This has led to a new interest in the "cultural economy" of the creative industries, and in the "cultural infrastructure" of the digital age.
The sociology of culture is also increasingly global in its scope. The early work in the subfield was dominated by the study of Western societies, particularly the United States and France. But the sociology of culture has become a global field, with scholars studying the cultural dynamics of the non-Western societies, the "cultural globalization" of the world, and the "cultural hybridity" of the postcolonial world. This has led to a new attention to the "cultural flows" of the global and the "cultural politics" of the global.
The sociology of culture is also increasingly engaged with the public issues of the day. The study of the "culture wars" of the contemporary politics, the "cultural" of the social media, and the "cultural" of the climate change are all areas of active research. The subfield is not a "pure" academic discipline; it is a way of understanding the world that has a direct bearing on the public life.
The sociology of culture is a subfield that is defined by its questions, not by its answers. It asks how culture is produced, how it is distributed, how it is used, and what it means. It is a field that is characterized by a diversity of approaches, and by a continuing debate about the nature of its object. But it is a field that has made a lasting contribution to the understanding of the social life, and it is a field that continues to be a vital and a productive area of research.