Today I am reading Social Performances, Alexander et al.'s new text on cultural pragmatics and performativity (incidentally, not the same performativity as ascendent in Europe among folks doing media, etc).
The text is supposed to provide a theoretical link between structural theories of culture (meaning of action is cultural/extra-situational) and pragmatic theories of action (meaning of action is situational and contingent). Given my line of research, a successful theory that did this would be wonderful. I'd love one from Alexander since I am a current subscriber to the strong program when it comes to the analysis of cultural meaning systems. However, I am not really "feeling" this text. I could discuss lots of little problems but instead will just state the glaring, apparently insurmountable issue that is going to doom this text to a footnote in my dissertation in which I state that they got it all wrong.
The theory of cultural pragmatics starts from the idea of ritual in understanding routine behavior. Further, most of the chapters examine highly "significant" moments (e.g. mass protests, national political crises). HELLO??!! The so-called "pragmatic" theories of action cultural pragmatics are supposed to improve upon are concerned with unremarkable, everyday action - those actions to which we pay so little attention (both personally and sociologically speaking) as long as we are fish in water but, yet, are the building blocks of both the social world and individual life trajectories. A more successful theoretical endeavor would have left Durkheim's rituals aside in favor of James' (or was it Peirce, I'm not willing to look it up) habits.
As I read it, and I will keep reading in case I'm wrong, the theory of cultural pragmatics does not extend logically or neatly to unremarkable everyday action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment