This article proposes an empirically grounded theory of the acceptance of authoritative speech beyond contexts of deliberation. I synthesize Habermas’s and Bourdieu’s influential theories on the topic by specifying factors that lead to either a prereflexive acceptance or a critical evaluation of the claims made by people in positions of authority. To do so, I assess each author’s theses in four types of contexts covered by three empirical studies that analyze reactions to authoritative speech. I find that people can autonomously reject authoritative speech if they have the necessary cultural resources, such as relevant personal experience or contradictory background norms, or if they are strongly motivated—for example, by disappointed expectations. Otherwise, individuals are likely to accept what authorities say without regard for reasons. The synthetic theory proposed better grasps the potentials and limitations of people’s critical capacities—a crucial task for democratic and critical sociological theory.
AbercrombieNicholasTurnerBryan S.1978. “The Dominant Ideology Thesis.” British Journal of Sociology29:149–70.
2.
AlthusserLouis. 2001. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation).” Pp. 85–126 in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays by AlthussserLouis. New York: Monthly Review Press.
3.
AtkinsonWill. 2010. “Phenomenological Additions to the Bourdieusian Toolbox: Two Problems for Bourdieu, Two Solutions from Schutz.” Sociological Theory28:1–19.
4.
AustinJohn L.1975. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
BenfordRobert D.SnowDavid A.2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology26:611–39.
6.
BergerJohannes. 1991. “The Linguistification of the Sacred and the Delinguistification of the Economy.” Pp. 165–80 in Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, edited by HonnethA.JoasH.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
BohmanJames. 1989. “‘System’ and ‘Lifeworld’: Habermas and the Problem of Holism.” Philosophy and Social Criticism15:381–401.
8.
BohmanJames. 1999. “Practical Reason and Cultural Constraint: Agency in Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice.” Pp. 129–52 in Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, edited by SchustermanR.Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
9.
BourdieuPierre. 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason.” Social Science Information14:19.
10.
BourdieuPierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BourdieuPierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
BourdieuPierre. 1985. “The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups.” Social Science Information24:195–220.
13.
BourdieuPierre. 1987. “Legitimation and Structured Interests in Weber’s Sociology of Religion.” Pp. 119–36 in Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity, edited by LashS.WhimsterS.London: Allen and Unwin.
14.
BourdieuPierre. 1988. Homo Academicus, translated by P. Collier. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
BourdieuPierre. 1989. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Theory7:14–25.
16.
BourdieuPierre. 1991a. “Authorized Language: The Social Conditions for the Effectiveness of Ritual Discourse.” Pp. 107–16 in Language and Symbolic Power by BourdieuPierre, edited by ThompsonJ. B.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
BourdieuPierre. 1991b. “Description and Prescription: The Conditions of Possibility and the Limits of Political Effectiveness.” Pp. 127–36 in Language and Symbolic Power by BourdieuPierre, edited byThompsonJ. B.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
BourdieuPierre. 1991c. “The Peculiar History of Scientific Reason.” Sociological Forum6:3–26.
19.
BourdieuPierre. 1991d. “Price Formation and the Anticipation of Profits.” Pp. 66–89 in Language and Symbolic Power by BourdieuPierre, edited by ThompsonJ. B.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
BourdieuPierre. 1991e. “The Production and Reproduction of Legitimate Language.” Pp. 43–65 in Language and Symbolic Power by BourdieuPierre, edited by ThompsonJ. B.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
21.
BourdieuPierre. 1998. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
BourdieuPierre. 1999. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field.” Pp. 31–50 in Science Studies Reader, edited by BiagioliM.New York: Routledge.
BourdieuPierre. 2005. “The Political Field, the Social Science Field, and the Journalistic Field.” Pp. 29–47 in Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field, edited by BensonR.NeveuE.Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
25.
BurawoyMichael. 1998. “The Extended Case Method.” Sociological Theory16:4–33.
26.
CalhounCraig. 1988. “Populist Politics, Communications Media and Large Scale Societal Integration.” Sociological Theory6:219–41.
27.
ChaikenShelly. 1980. “Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39:752.
28.
CranoWilliam D.PrislinRadmila. 2006. “Attitudes and Persuasion.” Annual Review of Psychology57:345–74.
29.
DeBonoKenneth G.KleinClaudine. 1993. “Source Expertise and Persuasion: The Moderating Role of Recipient Dogmatism.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin19:167–73.
30.
DiMaggioPaul J.1997. “Culture and Cognition.” Annual Review of Sociology23:263–87.
31.
EderKlaus. 1999. “Societies Learn and Yet the World Is Hard to Change.” European Journal of Social Theory2:195–215.
32.
FestingerLeonRieckenHenry W.SchnachterStanley. 1956. When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
33.
FraserNancy. 1989. “What’s Critical about Critical Theory? The Case of Habermas and Gender.” Pp. 113–43 in Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory by FraserNancy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
GamsonWilliam A.1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
GiddensAnthony. 1982. “Reason Without Revolution? Habermas’s Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns.” Praxis International2:318–38.
36.
GiddensAnthony. 1985. The Nation-state and Violence: Volume Two of A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
37.
GowanTeresa. 2009. “New Hobos or Neo-romantic Fantasy? Urban Ethnography beyond the Neoliberal Disconnect.” Qualitative Sociology32:231–57.
38.
GramsciAntonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited by HoareQ.Nowell-SmithG.London: Lawrence and Wishart.
39.
HabermasJürgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis, translated by McCarthyT.Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
40.
HabermasJürgen. 1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society, translated by McCarthyT.Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
41.
HabermasJürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society, translated by McCarthyT.Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
42.
HabermasJürgen. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, translated by McCarthyT.Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
43.
HabermasJürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, translated by RehgW.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
HaywardClarissa R.2004. “Doxa and Deliberation.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy7:2–24.
45.
JoasHans. 1991. “The Unhappy Marriage of Hermeneutics and Functionalism.” Pp. 97–118 in Communicative Action: Essays on Jürgen Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, edited byHonnethA.JoasH.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
KruglanskiArie W.ThompsonErik P.1999. “Persuasion by a Single Route: A View from the Unimodel.” Psychological Inquiry10:83–109.
47.
LamaisonPierreBourdieuPierre. 1986. “From Rules to Strategies: An Interview with Pierre Bourdieu.” Cultural Anthropology1:110–20.
48.
MarxKarlEngelsFriedrich. 1972. The German Ideology, translated by ArthurC. J.New York: International Publishers.
49.
McCarthyThomas. 1984. “Reflections on Rationalization in the Theory of Communicative Action.” Praxis International4:177–91.
50.
McCarthyThomas. 1985. “Complexity and Democracy, or the Seducements of Systems Theory.” New German Critique35:27–53.
51.
MerrySally Engle. 1986. “Everyday Understandings of the Law in Working-class America.” American Ethnologist13:253–70.
52.
MisgeldDieter. 1983. “Communication and Societal Rationalization: A Review Essay of Jürgen Habermas’sTheorie des Kommunikativen Handelns.” Canadian Journal of Sociology8:433–53.
53.
MisgeldDieter. 1985. “Critical Hermeneutics versus Neoparsonianism?” New German Critique35:55–82.
54.
O’KeefeDaniel J.2002. Persuasion: Theory and Research. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
55.
PerloffRichard M.2010. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-first Century. 4th ed.New York: Routledge.
56.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T.GoldmanRachel. 1981. “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-based Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41:847.
57.
PornpitakpanChanthika. 2004. “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology34:243–81.
58.
PrasadMonicaPerrinAndrew J.BezilaKieranHoffmanSteve G.KindlebergerKateManturukKimPowersAshleigh S.2009. “‘There Must Be a Reason’: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification.” Sociological Inquiry79:142–62.
59.
SchneiderhanErikKhanShamus. 2008. “Reasons and Inclusion: The Foundation of Deliberation.” Sociological Theory26:1–24.
60.
ScottJames C.1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
61.
SicaAlan. 1991. “Review Essay: The Power of Talk.” American Journal of Sociology97:524–33.
62.
SnowDavid A.BenfordRobert D.1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research1:197–217.
63.
TherbornGöran. 1980. The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology. London: Verso Books.
64.
ThompsonJohn B.1983. “Rationality and Social Rationalization: An Assessment of Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action.” Sociology17:278–94.
65.
VaiseyStephen. 2009. “Motivation and Justification: A Dual Process Model of Culture in Action.” American Journal of Sociology114:1675–715.
66.
WeberMax. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, edited by RothG.WittichC.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
67.
WoodWendy. 2000. “Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence.” Annual Review of Psychology51:539–70.
