MAINSTREAMING THE CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF POLITICS* Brian Steensland Indiana University * An expanded version of this talk is forthcoming in Sociological Forum

 “Is cultural sociology doomed?” (Robert Wuthnow, Culture newsletter, 1997)

 Cultural sociology … …luxury item among departmental hiring priorities …anti-positivist epistemology …limited promise for external funding …irrelevant to pressing concerns of the day

 Wuthnow closed by saying “it may be increasingly important for cultural sociology to blend with other specialties, rather than presenting itself as a distinctive subfield”

 Cultural sociology has thrived in the past decade.  But… I would argue Wuthnow’s concerns still apply today.  Arguments--not assumptions--that culture matters need to be made more strongly in studies of politics.  This is especially true in one of my research areas—the state and social policy—which is almost entirely non-cultural in analytic orientation.

Culture and Politics: Three modes of incorporation

 Mode #1: Add culture as an explanatory factor (or mechanism) for established political outcomes in political sociology and political science (e.g., voting, state formation, legislative success, legal change). XY Culture

Culture and Politics: Three modes of incorporation  Mode #2: Reorient research toward cultural processes/outcomes (e.g., identity, discourse, boundaries, symbolic structure). X Culture

Culture and Politics: Three modes of incorporation  Mode #3: Show the cultural constitution of existing (non-cultural) perspectives. (This could be considered the Sewellian project in studies of politics). XY Culture

Culture and Politics: Three modes of incorporation  Mode #1: Add culture to the existing mix  Mode #2: Reorient research toward cultural processes/outcomes  Mode #3: Show the cultural constitution of existing (non-cultural) perspectives   Most recent studies of culture and politics follow Mode #2

Culture and Politics: Three modes of incorporation  Mode #1: Add culture to the existing mix  Mode #2: Reorient research toward cultural processes/outcomes  Mode #3: Show the cultural constitution of existing (non-cultural) perspectives   I would argue that cultural sociologists need to devote more attention to Mode #1 and Mode #3

Modes #1 and #3 (1) This agenda produces research that may convince culture skeptics. We currently risk preaching only to the choir. (2) This work provides the warrant for Mode #2 I offer a few examples from my own work, which is oriented toward explaining a mainstream outcome: policy success/failure.

Argument #1  Policy paradigms orient decision making among experts (beyond state capacity, professional autonomy, policy feedbacks, and other established factors in the literature)

Argument #2  Policy meanings shape legislative preferences among the general public (beyond “simple” economic self-interest, etc.)

Argument #3  Cultural distinctions constitute interest definition among key policymakers and collective identity among the poor (in contrast to interests and identity being immutable or self-evident)

Recap, with Modes  Policy paradigms orient decision making among experts (Mode #1)  Policy meanings shape legislative preferences among the general public (Mode #1)  Cultural distinctions constitute interest definition among key policymakers and collective identity among the poor (Mode #3)

Challenges (1) Knowing the internal logic of non-cultural perspectives  Modes #1 and #3 may fail to connect the dots to political outcomes

Challenges (1) Knowing the internal logic of non-cultural perspectives  Modes #1 and #3 may fail to connect the dots to political outcomes (2) Successful innovations in cultural analysis becoming disconnected from originating explanatory impulses  Mode #1 evolves into Mode #2

Conclusion  “Is cultural sociology doomed relevant?”