Investigations of the reception of textual objects have alternately emphasized demographically conditioned patterns of evaluation and taste, or the agency of viewers, readers, and listeners in constructing their own cultural interpretations. In the present article, we advance an empirical and formal analysis of the cultural reception of texts in which interpretations of the multiple dimensions on which a text may be evaluated are transmitted and modified within small groups of individuals in face-to-face contact. We contribute an approach in which the intersection of social structure, individual readings, and interactive group processes all may enter into readers’ interpretations of a novel. Our investigation focuses on a set of book clubs for which we collected data on group members’ pre- and post-discussion evaluations of a specific book, and the interpersonal influence networks that were formed during the groups’ discussions. We analyze these data with a multilevel model of individuals nested in groups, which allows us to address the effects of structure and group dynamics on cultural reception in a single analytic framework.
AndersonNorman H.1981. Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press.
2.
AlexanderJeffrey C.2003. The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
AschaffenburgKarenMaasIneke. 1997. “Cultural and Educational Careers: The Dynamics of Social Reproduction.” American Sociological Review62:573–87.
4.
BarthesRoland. 1974. S/Z. New York: Hill and Wang.
5.
BartonDavidHamiltonMary. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge.
6.
BartonDavidHamiltonMaryIvaničRoz. 2000. Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context. London: Routledge.
7.
BourdieuPierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BourdieuPierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
9.
BrysonBethany. 1996. “‘Anything But Heavy Metal’: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes.” American Sociological Review61:884–99.
10.
CollinsRandall. 1992. “Women and the Production of Status Cultures.” Pp. 152–86 in Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by LamontM.FournierM.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
DenzinNorman K.1978. Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
DeVaultMarjorie L.1990. “Novel Readings: The Social Organization of Interpretation.” American Journal of Sociology95:887–921.
13.
DiMaggioPaul. 1987. “Classification in Art.” American Sociological Review52:440–55.
14.
DiMaggioPaul. Forthcoming. “Cultural Networks.” In The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, edited by ScottJ.HarringtonP.Essex, UK: Sage Publications.
15.
DiMaggioPaulMohrJohn. 1985. “Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment and Marital Selection.” American Journal of Sociology90:1231–61.
16.
DiMaggioPaulUseemMichael. 1978. “Social Class and Arts Consumption.” Theory and Society5:141–61.
17.
EmirbayerMustafaGoodwinJeff. 1994. “Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency.” American Journal of Sociology99:1411–54.
18.
EmirbayerMustafaMischeAnn. 1998. “What is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology103:962–1023.
19.
EricksonBonnie H.1996. “Culture, Class, and Connections.” American Journal of Sociology102:217–52.
20.
FineGary Alan. 1979. “Small Groups and Culture Creation: The Idioculture of Little League Baseball Teams.” American Sociological Review44:733–45.
21.
FishStanley. 1982. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
FiskeJohn. 1989. Reading the Popular. London: Routledge.
23.
FoucaultMichel. 1979. “What Is an Author?” Pp. 141–60 in Textual Strategies: Perspectives on Post-Structuralist Criticism, edited by HarariJ. V.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
FriedkinNoah E.1998. A Structural Theory of Social Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
FriedkinNoah E.1999. “Choice Shift and Group Polarization.” American Sociological Review64:856–75.
26.
FriedkinNoah E.2001. “Norm Formation in Social Influence Networks.” Social Networks23:167–89.
27.
FriedkinNoah E.JohnsenEugene C.1999. “Social Influence Networks and Opinion Change.” Advances in Group Processes16:1–29.
28.
FriedkinNoah E.JohnsenEugene C.2011. Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GansHerbert J.1999. Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic Books.
30.
GeertzClifford. 1977. The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
31.
GiddensAnthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
GriswoldWendy. 1987. “The Fabrication of Meaning: Literary Interpretation in the United States, Great Britain, and the West Indies.” American Journal of Sociology92:1077–17.
35.
GriswoldWendy. 1993. “Recent Moves in the Sociology of Literature.” Annual Review of Sociology19:455–67.
36.
GriswoldWendy. 2003. Culture and Societies in a Changing World. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press.
37.
GriswoldWendy. 2008. Regionalism and the Reading Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
HalleDavid. 1996. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
HaysSharon. 1994. “Structure and Agency and the Sticky Problem of Culture.” Sociological Theory12:57–72.
40.
HirschPaul M.1972. “Processing Fads and Fashions.” American Journal of Sociology77:639–59.
LamontMichèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
LamontMichèleFournierMarcel. 1993. Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49.
LamontMichèleSchmalzbauerJohnWallerMaureenWeberDaniel. 1996. “Cultural and Moral Boundaries in the United States: Structural Position, Geographic Location, and Lifestyle Explanations.” Poetics24:31–56.
50.
LiebesTamarKatzElihu. 1990. The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. New York: Oxford University Press.
51.
LizardoOmar. 2006. “How Cultural Tastes Shape Personal Networks.” American Sociological Review71:778–807.
52.
LongElizabeth. 2003. Book Clubs: Women and the Uses of Reading in Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53.
MachorJames L.GoldsteinPhillip. 2001. Reception Study: From Literary Theory to Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge.
54.
MarkNoah. 1998. “Birds of a Feather Sing Together.” Social Forces77:453–85.
55.
MarkNoah. 2003. “Culture and Competition: Homophily and Distancing Explanations for Cultural Niches.” American Sociological Review68:319–45.
56.
MartinJohn Levi. 2002. “Power, Authority, and the Constraint of Belief Systems.” American Journal of Sociology107:861–904.
57.
McPhersonMiller. 1983. “An Ecology of Affiliation.” American Sociological Review48:519–32.
58.
McPhersonJ. MillerSmith-LovinLynnCookJames M.2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology27:415–44.
59.
MedhurstAndy. 1991. “Batman, Deviance, and Camp.” Pp. 149–63 in The Many Lives of the Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media, edited by PearsonR. E.UricchioW.London: Routledge.
60.
MohrJohn W.RawlingsCraig. Forthcoming. “Four Ways to Measure Culture: Social Science, Hermeneutics and the Cultural Turn.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cultural Sociology, edited by AlexanderJ. C.JacobsR.SmithP.New York: Oxford University Press.
61.
MorleyDavidBrunsdonC.1999. The Nationwide Television Studies. London: Routledge.
62.
OatleyKeith. 1994. “A Taxonomy of the Emotions of Literary Response and a Theory of Identification in Fictional Narrative.” Poetics23:53–74.
63.
OsgoodCharles E.SuciGeorge J.TannenbaumPercy. 1957. Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
64.
PachukiMark A.BreigerRonald L.2010. “Cultural Holes: Beyond Relationality in Social Networks and Culture.” Annual Review of Sociology36:205–224.
65.
PetersonRichard A.1997. “The Rise and Fall of Highbrow Snobbery as a Status Marker.” Poetics25:75–92.
66.
PetersonRichard A.2000. “Two Ways Culture Is Produced.” Poetics28:225–33.
67.
PetersonRichard A.KernRoger M.1996. “Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore.” American Sociological Review61:900–907.
68.
PfaffKerry L.GibbsRaymond W.Jr.1997. “Authorial Intentions in Understanding Satirical Texts.” Poetics25:45–70.
69.
PressAndrea L.1992. “The Active Viewer and the Problem of Interpretation: Reconciling Traditional and Critical Research.” Communication Yearbook15:91–106.
RadwayJanice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
72.
RodriquezJason. 2006. “Color-Blind Ideology and the Cultural Appropriation of Hip-Hop.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography35:645–68.
73.
SchmidtSiegfried J.1982. Foundations of the Empirical Science of Literature. Hamburg, Germany: Helmut Buske.
74.
SchultzJenniferBreigerRonald L.2010. “The Strength of Weak Culture.” Poetics38:610–24.
75.
SewellWilliam H.1992. “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.” American Journal of Sociology98:1–29.
76.
SwidlerAnne. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review51:273–86.
77.
TepperSteven J.2000. “Fiction Reading in America: Explaining the Gender Gap.” Poetics27:255–75.
78.
VaiseyStephenLizardoOmar. 2010. “Can Cultural Worldviews Influence Network Composition?” Social Forces88:1595–1618.
79.
WimsattWilliam K.BeardsleyMonroe C.1946. “The Intentional Fallacy.” Sewanee Review54:468–88.
80.
ZajoncRobert B.1980. “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences.” American Psychologist35:151–75.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
