SWIDLER



We’ll put Ann Swidler (Professor of Sociology at UC Berkeley) in conversation with Weber. Please start by reading Michèle Lamont’s book review for Swidler’s Talk of Love (2001).



CULTURE IN ACTION


Swidler. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies”


Swidler. 1995. “Cultural Power and Social Movements”


In “Culture in Action,” Swidler challenges the view that culture motivates action by offering ultimate ends or values. In addition to highlighting the problematic uses of “value explanations” in the sociology of poverty and the sociology of religion, Swidler criticizes the conventional emphasis on the “unit act.” It’s a mistake to assume that culture propels a series of singular actions that are directed toward values. However, that does not mean culture is irrelevant or that it’s unrelated to action. Swidler argues culture is best understood as a repertoire or “tool kit” from which individuals or collectives can draw upon to solve various problems. They can rummage through their cultural tool kit of “of habits, skills, and styles” to assemble “strategies of action.” People build “chains” of conduct and culture shapes, but does not overdetermine, the possible linkages. That is at least the typical relation during “settled periods.” However, Swidler argues that during “unsettled periods” culture can influence action more directly through coherent and competing ideologies. Structural conditions help determine which ideologies can mutate into durable cultural tools for future periods of settlement. Swidler’s second essay, “Cultural Power and Social Movements,” elaborates on this point. Social movements are where new ideologies and other cultural tools are “most frequently formulated.”

SWIDLER AND WEBER


Read the "Weber Excerpts for Swidler" in the Excerpt Packet.


Swidler directly engages Foucault (on the exercise of power), and Bourdieu (on disposition). We can also think about what she might say to Gramsci (on hegemony), Bauman (on liquid modernity), and others. However, she most directly engages Weber. Swidler critiques his vision of “social action,” and spends considerable time poking holes in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In addition to evaluating the merits of her critiques, we should consider how she subtly extends a Weberian sociology. We should discuss, for example, how these two theorists preference culture above other factors. It might also be worth our time to consider the similar manner in which they minimally address Marxism.