1.26.05
Course website has moved to Blackboard.  Click here to login and access readings for the course.

Soc 248 01: Popular Culture Dynamics, aka The Sociology of Culture
9:35-10:50 Tuesday and Thursday
109 Calhoun
Jennifer C. Lena
Jennifer.c.lena@vanderbilt.edu
Office hours: Wednesdays, 9:35 am-11:00 am
Course website: http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/lenajc/248
Blackboard website: https://oak.vanderbilt.edu/webapps/login
TA: Josh Packard
joshua.r.packard@vanderbilt.edu

This is a survey course in the sociology of culture.  The course will introduce you to the major themes of a field that has "fuzzy boundaries"--it is not an institution or social process that can empirically be treated as distinct from others (e.g., family, religion or the economy); it does not have a well-developed and/or relatively standard set of methods that can provide an initial focus for study; and, it is one of the fastest-growing areas of research, and so "canonical texts" are both created and put out-of-vogue rapidly.

We approach the field through several traditional theoretical paradigms: Durkheimian, Marxist, Semiotic and Historical Cultural Sociology.  Our focus then shifts to units that some would consider theoretical traditions, while others might identify them as "units of analysis:" cultural fields, the production of culture, consumption/reception, and production (the artists' view).  We spend the next week considering stratification in the U.S.--this will introduce students to several audience studies.  We will do two weeks of “case studies:” on ‘trash TV’ and authenticity.  The capstone of the course will be two weeks of student presentations on the material covered in Glassner’s book, “The Culture of Fear.”

Caveat emptor: We will read and learn about cultural objects and practices (e.g., television, movies, books, advertising, cell phones, painting, dance), but it is not my aim to make them the focus of our class.  Rather, we are going to learn about how the discipline of sociology is organized into groups that share perspectives on what questions should be asked about culture, and how they are to be answered.  In other words, I will teach you more about Antonio Gramsci than I will Antonio Bandares.   Moreover, a word about how I teach, for those of you who don’t know me yet.  I assign what some students have felt is a lot of dense reading, and some weeks include over 100 pages of reading.  I expect the best effort from my students all of the time.  I also do my very best to help each and every one of you to learn the material in the course, and enjoy doing so.  I will expect you to behave responsibly in and out of class—interpersonally and intellectually.  You can expect the same of me.
 
I have tried to ensure that the readings overlap as little as possible with material from other courses offered by the department. I expect this course will help students prepare for further study in the Sociology of Culture, compatible courses in other departments (both social sciences and humanities), and other courses in the Department of Sociology.   This course therefore strives to be both broad and deep.  It is designed for Sociology majors, however, students from other departments may enroll in the course.  If you are at all concerned about your level of preparedness for this course, I strongly encourage you to make an appointment to speak with me, as soon as possible.

Course Objectives:
From the readings and course discussions of them:
1. Students will gain proficiency in Marxist, Durkheimian, semiotic, and historical theoretical approaches to the analysis of culture.
2. Students will understand the differences and similarities in sociological approaches to culture that focus on field-level examinations, production and consumption.
3. Students will learn patterns of culture use in the United States, and understand the strengths and weaknesses of particular studies of same.
4. Students will gain particular insight into the production of television talk shows, authenticity, and the “culture of fear.” 
From the course, in general:
5. Students will be able to compare and contrast sociological theories and research on the sociology of culture such that they can critique study design and theoretical suppositions and conclusions.
6. Students will be able to carry on an informed, thoughtful conversation with peers concerning culture, from a sociological perspective.
7. Students will be prepared to design and implement small-scale research on cultural patterns.

Attendance, Reading and Discussion: You are required to attend every class, having completed the reading assignment, and prepared to discuss it.  I expect every student to engage in class discussion, constructively and creatively.  15% of final grade based on discussion.
You must participate in discussion to earn any credit for this portion of your final grade.  However, not all “talk” is discussion: your oral contributions in class must be topical, substantive, must accurately reflect the reading material, must contribute to the advancement of knowledge, and should be the result of independent contemplation and discussion.  In order to facilitate this, you might write discussion questions in advance of each class period, on which you can base your contribution(s). 
I expect all students to come to class with copies of the day’s reading. 

Exams.  There will be three exams in the course, one at the end of every five weeks.  These will be take-home, open-book exams, in essay format, and limited to 3 hours.  Each exam will primarily test on the material in the previous five weeks (i.e., the exams are not strictly cumulative).  75% of final grade based on exam performance.  Each exam worth 25%.

Presentations, week 13 &14.  The class will be divided into small groups.  Each group will be given responsibility for a chapter in Barry Glassner’s book The Culture of Fear.  The group is responsible for leading discussion on the book for 35 minutes.  Presentations must include the following:

A single grade will be given to all members of the group, based on the clarity, organization and effectiveness of their presentation.  A few questions about presentations: most of you have sat through numerous boring presentations by your peers.  What did they do wrong?  What makes a presentation a compelling one?  I expect the group to put effort into crafting an interesting and effective presentations style, just as you must fulfill the other criteria for these presentations.  10% of final grade based on presentations.

The instructor reserves the right to adjust the weighting or scheduling of assignments at any time, with due notice.

Grading:
All of the assignments in the course will be graded in accordance with the following criteria:

All grades are final, unless an error in calculation has been made.
You may not discuss your assignment or grade with the professor or TA in the first 24-hours after it has been returned to you.

Honesty: All students must abide by the honor code, a description of which is contained in your Student Handbook.  Plagiarism or cases of cheating will be handed over to the Honor Council and can result in a failing grade for the course, suspension, or expulsion from the University.

Week 1: Preliminaries: Orientation

January 13
Introduction to the course, syllabus; no reading.

January 18
Williams, Raymond, “Culture.”  In Raymond Williams, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Expanded edition. (New York: Oxford UP, 1976; London: Fontana, 1988).

January 20
Anderson, Margaret L. and Howard F. Taylor.  "Chapter 2: Culture."  In Anderson and Taylor (eds.), Sociology: The Essentials, Third Edition.  (New York: Wadsworth, 2005).

Week 2: Culture and Social Structure: Durkheim

January 25
Douglas, Mary, “Symbolic Pollution,” pp. 155-159 in AS.
Sahlins, Marshall.  “Food as Symbolic Code,” pp. 94-101 in AS.
Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll, “Sex as Symbol in Victorian purity,” pp. 160-170 in AS.

January 27
Martin, John Levi, “What do Animals do all day? The division of labor, class bodies and totemic thinking in the popular imagination,” Poetics, 27 (2000), pp. 195–231.

Bonus!!
This article from Prospect argues we should consider Durkheim the OG critic of free-market capitalism.
Crooked Timber connects Durkheim's views on marriage and integration to Desperate Housewives.

Week 3: Culture and Class: Marxism

February 1
Marx, Karl. From “The German Ideology” (148-175); “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” (53-65); “Capital, Volume 1”  “Section 4: The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.” In Robert C. Tucker, editor, The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978).
Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in Mass Communication and Society, Pp. 349-383 in J. Curran, M. Gurevitch and J. Wollacott (eds.). (Beverly Hills: CA: Sage, 1979 [1977]).

February 3
Berger, John.  “The Suit and the Photograph,” Pp. 424-431 in MS.
Willis, Paul, “Masculinity and Factory Labor,” Pp. 183-95 in AS.

Week 4: Culture as Signification: Semiotics

February 8
de Saussure, Ferdinand, “Signs and Language,” Pp. 55-63 in AS.
Barthes, Roland, “The World of Wrestling,” pp. 87-93 in AS.

February 10
Seidman, Steven, “AIDS and the Discursive Construction of Homosexuality.”  Pp. 47-59 in S.

A semiotic analysis of actual signs?

Week 5: Psychology and Individuality: Historical Cultural Sociology

February 15
Simmel, Georg. “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” pp. 174-185; “The Philosophy of Fashion,” 187-206; “Some Remarks on Prostitution in the Present and in the Future,” 262-270 in Simmel on Culture.  David Frisby and M. Featherstone (eds.).  (London: Sage, 1997).

February 17
Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process Volume 1: The History of Manners.  Pp. 3-13, 29-33, 42-105, 117-138, 181-200. (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994).

EXAM 1

Week 6: Cultural Fields

February 22
DiMaggio, Paul.  “Classification in Art.”  American Sociological Review, 52 (August 1987): 440-455.
White, Harrison and Cynthia White.  Canvasses and Careers. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1965), Chs. 3-4 (pp. 76-152).

February 24
Ferguson, Priscilla P.  “A Cultural Field in the Making: Gastronomy in 19th-Century France.”  American Journal of Sociology.  Vol. 104, No. 3 (Nov., 1998), pp. 597-641.

Week 7: Production of Culture

March 1
Becker, Howard.  “Art Worlds and Collective Activity,” pp. 1-39, “Mobilizing Resources,” pp. 68-92.  In Art Worlds.  (Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1982).
Hebdidge, Dick, “Object as Image: The Italian Scooter Cycle,” Pp. 77-115 in Hiding in the Light:On Images and Things.  (New York: Routledge, 2002).

March 3
Bielby, William T. and Denise D. Bielby, “All Hits are Flukes: Institutionalized Decision Making and the Rhetoric of Prime-Time Program Development,” American Journal of Sociology, 99 (1994), pp. 1287–1313.

Week 8: Consumption/Reception

March 15
Becker, Howard, “Becoming a Marijuana User,” American Journal of Sociology, 59 (1953), pp. 235–242.
DeNora, Tia.  Music and Everyday Life.  Cambridge UP.  2000.  Chapter 5: “Music as a Device of Social Ordering.” (pp.109-150)

March 17
Griswold, Wendy, “The Fabrication of Meaning: Literary interpretation in the United States, Great Britain and the West Indies,” American Journal of Sociology, 92 (1987), pp. 1077–1117.

Week 9: Production, Artists’ View

March 22
Becker, Howard.  Art Worlds (Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1982).  Chapter 8 (pp. 226-271), Chapter 10 (pp. 300-350) and Chapter 11 (351-371).

March 24
Foucault, Michel.  “What is an Author.”  Pp. 446-464 in MS.
Lang, Gladys and Kurt Lang.  “Recognition and Renown: The Survival of Artistic Reputation,” American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1988), 79-109.

Week 10: Stratification in the U.S.

March 29
Gans, Herbert J.. Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste.  (New York: Basic Books, 1999).  Chapter 2 (pp. 91-160).
Peterson, Richard A. and Roger M. Kern.  “Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore.”  American Sociological Review, 61 (October 1996): 900-907.

March 31
Brooks, David.  Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There.  (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).  Introduction and Chapter 1 (pp. 9-53). 

EXAM 2

Week 11: “Best of” Case Studies: Talk Shows, “Trash TV”

April 5
Gamson, Joshua.  Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity.  (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1999).  Chapters 1, 2, 7.

April 7
Grindstaff, Laura.  The Money Shot: Trash, Class and the Making of TV Talk Shows.  (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).  Chapters 1 (17-42), 4 (115-147) & 8 (243-273).


Week 12: Afraid of the News, Youth, Moms?  Student Presentations.

April 12
Glassner, Barry.  The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things.  (New York: Basic Books, 1999).  Introduction, Chapters 1, 2.

April 14
Glassner, Barry.  The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things.  (New York: Basic Books, 1999).  Chapters 3, and 4.


Week 13: Afraid of Black Men, Illnesses, Plane Wrecks?  Student Presentations.

April 19
Glassner, Barry.  The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things.  (New York: Basic Books, 1999). Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

April 21
Glassner, Barry.  The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things.  (New York: Basic Books, 1999). Chapters 8 and 9.

April 27

Week 14: Programmatic and Prescriptive Statements

TBA

EXAM 3

"I chose to ignore what I knew.   [...]  I would like to think of my 'ignorance' less as a personal failing and more as a massive cultural trend, an example of doubling, of psychic numbing, that characterizes the end of the millennium.  If we can't act on knowledge, then we can't survive without ignorance.  So we cultivate the ignorance, go to great lengths to celebrate it, even.  The faux-dumb aesthetic that dominates TV and Hollywood must be about this.   Fed on a media diet of really bad news, we live in a perpetual state of repressed panic.  We are paralyzed by bad knowledge, from which the only escape is playing bumb.  Ignorance becomes empowering because it enables people to live.  Stupidity becomes proactive, a political statement.  Our collective norm."  From My Year of Meats, by Ruth L. Ozeki.