Abstract
The cultural turn in social sciences led to a redefinition or at least to a broad discussion of some core suppositions in sociological theory. Consider, for example, the critique of values in a Weberian tradition, by Ann Swidler (2003) among others, for the purpose of guiding human action. Current cultural sociology with an American bias concentrates extensively on the sphere of the subject and here on the process of meaning making. Yale sociologist Jeffrey C Alexander can be labeled as protagonist of the new cultural sociology. One should note: cultural sociology and not sociology of culture. With this term, culture is seen as part of a general sociological approach and not merely as a viewpoint of a sub-discipline or a hyphenate-sociology. In Alexander’s words: ‘cultural sociology follows a strong program, in which it is vital to establish what makes meaning important and what makes some social facts meaningful at all’ (p. 8).
Alexander is well known in the scientific community for his books on ‘the civil sphere’ (2006), ‘the meanings of social life’ (2003) or on ‘Durkheimian sociology’ (1990, 2005). He has been working on the topic of performance and therefore this book offers no completely new insights. Nor is it a strict composed theory of the relationship and entanglement of performance and power as the title may suggest. As stated in the preface, the book brings together Alexander’s essayistic efforts and hence collects articles from 2005 to 2010, complemented by two newer texts. Personally, I am not very convinced of this type of publication. On the one hand, even when revised, redundancy and repetition cannot be avoided completely. On the other hand, the brace of the substance across the topics is sometimes loose. The first aspect seems to be true for ‘Performance and Power’. Thus, it is hard or almost impossible to read the book at one go. But maybe this is not the main request of the author and we should ask what can be drawn from the author’s accentuation of performance.
Performance is not a basic concept of sociology as is power, but if Alexander is right, cultural sociology is now taking a performative turn. He defines cultural performance as ‘the social process by which actors, individually or connected, display for others the meaning of their social situation’ (p. 28). The elements of social performance comprise the actor, collective representations, means of symbolic production, the scene or situation, social power and the audience. He localizes performance somewhere near rituals. Rituals can be understood as episodes of repeated and simplified communication. Here, actors and partners of interaction, and also observers, are aware of the validity of the communicated symbolic content and their intention. Rituals or ritual-like action can also be found in modern societies. Among ‘individuals and between and within collectivities, our societies still seem to be permeated by symbolic, ritual like activities’ (p. 27). But performances today are not rituals in the traditional sense, they are much more complex. The way to understand the relevance and the meaning of performance in contemporary societies leads Alexander’s reasoning from the symbolic action in ritual to its transformation into theatre (pp. 83, 84). Referring to social action as role-play like in theatre, Alexander points back to Goffmann and the anthropologist Victor Turner, who successfully made us aware of the interpretation of social interaction as theatre play.
A big part of Alexander’s theoretical work is devoted to the explanation of the difference between traditional and modern, more fragmented societies. This is mostly done by stressing the cumulative gain of complexity. One successful assumption of cultural sociology is to show that modern societies are not only rational but also emotional, and therefore are not completely distinct from traditional societies. From an historical-sociological point of view one can criticize the underestimation of the differences between traditional and modern societies, which is also done by the author. But his theory is not arguing historically and Alexander’s main goal is to establish a new term in the theoretical field of sociology.
Performance in contemporary society, like theatrical dramas, aims to fuse or re-fuse people. Hence it can be successful or unsuccessful. Performance ‘may fail if any of the elements that compose them are insufficiently realized, or if the relation among these elements is not articulated in a coherent or forceful way’ (p. 165). Performance in this grasp is connected with power, but power here has a different meaning in a conventional sociological conception.
If power cannot simply be coercive, it needs to be performative. If power is to be effective, performing power must be a success. To be really powerful means that social actors, no matter what resources and capacities they possess, must find a way to make their audiences believe them. (p. 89)
Alexander’s book can be read as a critique against a more traditional understanding of action theory. Having said this, it is an expansion of the cultural sociology of meaning making. That the concept of performance can be turned into empirical investigations is shown throughout the book. The question returning to the reader is: is this only half the story? In other terms: is a structural power theory or a theory of action guided by values irrelevant?
Anyway – one of the greatest efforts of Alexander’s book is to show that cultural sociology can be linked with the term performance to the macro-sociological sphere. This is done, for example, by focusing on the audience and the multiplication of meaning by the critics.