This article describes a strategic mechanism, fuzzy boundaries, that groups use to accumulate advantage. In contrast to the dominant view that rigid, well-defined boundaries maximize group rewards, I argue that ambiguity in membership criteria can, under certain conditions, more effectively secure and promote group benefits. Fuzzy boundaries are defined by two features: an intentionally ambiguous criterion for inclusion and the selective, inconsistent application of that criterion to adjust the insider-outsider line as needed. I illustrate the operation of fuzzy boundaries through a historical analysis of occupational boundary drawing in the nineteenth-century United States. Ultimately, the study offers a generalizable framework for understanding how strategic ambiguity in group boundaries can serve actors seeking to preserve privilege across domains, such as education, hiring, and professional accreditation. Unlike well-defined qualifications, the malleability of fuzzy boundaries often insulates them from legal challenge, making them an effective mechanism for maintaining social and institutional advantage.
AbbottAndrew. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AbbottAndrew. 1995. “Things of Boundaries.” Social Research62(4):857–82.
3.
AbelRichard L.1989. American Lawyers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
AkchurinMariaLeeCheol-Sung. 2013. “Pathways to Empowerment: Repertoires of Women’s Activism and Gender Earnings Equality.” American Sociological Review78(4):679–701.
5.
AlbaRichard. 2005. “Bright Vs. Blurred Boundaries: Second-Generation Assimilation and Exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies28(1):20–49.
6.
AltomonteGuillermina. 2020. “Exploiting Ambiguity: A Moral Polysemy Approach to Variation in Economic Practices.” American Sociological Review85(1):76–105.
7.
ArendRichard. 2020. “Strategic Decision-Making under Ambiguity: A New Problem Space and a Proposed Optimization Approach.” Business Research13(3):1231–51.
8.
BailChristopher. 2008. “The Configuration of Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Europe.” American Sociological Review73(1):37–59.
9.
BechkyBeth. 2003 “Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction.” American Journal of Sociology109(3):720–52.
10.
BehnamMichaelMacLeanTammy. 2011 “Where Is the Accountability in International Accountability Standards? A Decoupling Perspective.” Business Ethics Quarterly21(1):45–72.
11.
BolThijsDrangeIda. 2017. “Occupational Closure and Wages in Norway.” Acta Sociologica60(2):134–57.
12.
BoltonSharonMuzioDaniel. 2007 “Can’t Live With ’Em; Can’t Live Without ’Em: Gendered Segmentation in the Legal Profession.” Sociology41(1):47–64.
13.
BowkerGeoffreyStarSusan. 2000. Sorting Things out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
BrubakerRogers. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
BurriRegula Valérie. 2008. “Doing Distinctions: Boundary Work and Symbolic Capital in Radiology.” Social Studies of Science38(1):35–62.
16.
CherryElizabeth. 2010. “Shifting Symbolic Boundaries: Cultural Strategies of the Animal Rights Movement.” Sociological Forum25(3):450–75.
17.
CollinsRandall. 1979. The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
CousinBrunoKhanShamusMearsAshley. 2018. “Theoretical and Methodological Pathways for Research on Elites.” Socio-Economic Review16(2):225–49.
19.
CrillyDonalZolloMaurizioHansenMorten T.2012 “Faking It or Muddling through? Understanding Decoupling in Response to Stakeholder Pressures.” Academy of Management Journal55(6):1429–48.
20.
CrozierMichel. 1964. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
EcclesRobert G.NohriaNitin. 1992. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–14 in Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
22.
EdelmanLauren. 1992. “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law.” American Journal of Sociology97(6):1531–76.
23.
EisenbergEric. 1984. “Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication.” Communication Monographs51(3):227–42.
24.
FloresWilliam. 2003. “New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship.” Latin American Perspectives30(3):295–308.
FoxNick. 2011. “Boundary Objects, Social Meanings and the Success of New Technologies.” Sociology45(1):70–85.
27.
FreidsonEliot. 1970. Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead.
28.
FridmanDanielLuscombeAlex. 2017. “Gift-Giving, Disreputable Exchange, and the Management of Donations in a Police Department.” Social Forces96(2):507–28.
29.
FriedmanLawrence M.1985. A History of American Law. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
30.
FujimuraJoan H.1992. “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation.’” Pp. 168–69 in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by PickeringA.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
GalanterMarc. 1974. “Why the Haves Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review9(1):95–160.
32.
GierynThomas F.1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review48(6):781–95.
33.
GrattetRykenJennessValerie. 2005. “The Reconstitution of Law in Local Settings: Agency Discretion, Ambiguity, and a Surplus of Law in the Policing of Hate Crime.” Law & Society Review39(4):893–942.
34.
HodgesMelissa. 2020. “Intersections on the Class Escalator: Gender, Race, and Occupational Segregation in Paid Care Work.” Sociological Forum35(1):24–49.
35.
Jones-CorreaMichael. 2005. “Language Provisions under the Voting Rights Act: How Effective Are They?”Social Science Quarterly86(3):549–64.
36.
JoppkeChristian. 2008. “Transformation of Citizenship: Status, Rights, Identity.” Pp. 36–47 in Citizenship between Past and Future, edited by IsinE. F.NyersP.TurnerB. S.New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
KarabelJerome. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
38.
KoopmansRuudMichalowskiInesWaibelStine. 2012. “Citizenship Rights for Immigrants: National Political Processes and Cross-National Convergence in Western Europe, 1980–2008.” American Journal of Sociology117(4):1202–45.
39.
Lainer-VosDan. 2013. “The Practical Organization of Moral Transactions: Gift Giving, Market Exchange, Credit, and the Making of Diaspora Bonds.” Sociological Theory31(2):145–67.
40.
LamontMichèle. 2012. “Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation.” Annual Review of Sociology38(1):201–21.
41.
LarsonMagali. 1977. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
LeiferEric. 1983. Robust Action: Generating Joint Outcomes in Social Relationships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
LevinInes. 2013. “Political Inclusion of Latino Immigrants: Becoming a Citizen and Political Participation.” American Politics Research41(4):535–68.
44.
LiebersonStanley. 1987. Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
LiuSida. 2018. “Boundaries and Professions: Toward a Processual Theory of Action.” Journal of Professions and Organization5(1):45–57.
46.
McCammonHollyChaudhuriSomaHewittLyndiMuseCourtney SandersNewmanHarmony D.SmithCarrie LeeTerrellTeresa M.2008. “Becoming Full Citizens: The US Women’s Jury Rights Campaigns, the Pace of Reform, and Strategic Adaptation.” American Journal of Sociology113(4):1104–47.
47.
NicoliniDavideMengisJeanneSwanJacky. 2012. “Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration.” Organization Science23(3):612–29.
48.
PadgettJohnAnsellChristopher. 1993. “Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400–1434.” American Journal of Sociology98(6):1259–319.
49.
ParkinFrank. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
50.
PatrickMary. 2018. “Gift Exchange or ‘Quid Pro Quo’? Temporality, Ambiguity, and Stigma in Interactions between Pedestrians and Service-Providing Panhandlers.” Theory and Society47(4):487–509.
51.
quisumbing kingkatrina. 2022. “The Structural Sources of Ambiguity in the Modern State: Race, Empire, and Conflicts over Membership.” American Journal of Sociology128(3):768–819.
52.
RahmanHatimValentineMelissa. 2021 “How Managers Maintain Control through Collaborative Repair: Evidence from Platform-mediated ‘Gigs.’” Organization Science32(5):1300–326.
53.
SaksMike. 2010. “Analyzing the Professions: The Case for the Neo-Weberian Approach.” Comparative Sociology9(6):887–915.
54.
SauderMichael. 2018. “Systems of Evaluation and the Matthew Effect.” Journal of Management Inquiry27(4):362–64.
55.
ScovilleCaleb. 2022. “Constructing Environmental Compliance: Law, Science, and Endangered Species Conservation in California’s Delta.” American Journal of Sociology127(4):1094–150.
56.
SillinceJohnJarzabkowskiPaulaShawDuncan. 2012. “Shaping Strategic Action through the Rhetorical Construction and Exploitation of Ambiguity.” Organization Science23(3):630–50.
57.
StarSusan Leigh. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35(5):601–17.
58.
StarSusan LeighGriesemerJames. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science19(3):387–420.
59.
StraussAnselm L. 1975. Professions, Work, and Careers. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
60.
SynnottMarcia. 1979. The Half-Opened Door: Discrimination and Admissions at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1900-1970. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
61.
TavoryIddo. 2011. “The Question of Moral Action: A Formalist Position.” Sociological Theory29(4):272–93.
62.
Terborg-PennRosalyn. 1998. African American Women in the Struggle for the Vote, 1850–1920. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
63.
TillyCharles. 2004. “Social Boundary Mechanisms.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences34(2):211–36.
64.
TillyCharles. 2005. Identities, Boundaries, and Social Ties. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
65.
TocquevilleAlexis de. [1835] 1966. Democracy in America. New York: Harper and Row.
66.
Tomaskovic-DeveyDonald. 1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources and Consequences of Job Segregation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
67.
WarrenCharles. 1912. A History of the American Bar. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.
68.
WeedenKim A.2002. “Why Do Some Occupations Pay More Than Others? Social Closure and Earnings Inequality in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology108(1):55–101.
69.
WeedenKim A.KimYoung-MiDi CarloMatthewGruskyDavid B.2007. “Social Class and Earnings Inequality.” American Behavioral Scientist50(5):702–36.
70.
WeberMax. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
71.
WimmerAndreas. 2008. “The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries: A Multilevel Process Theory.” American Journal of Sociology113(4):970–1022.
