Annual Reviews Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Annual Review of Sociology
Annual Reviews Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Annual Review of Sociology
Annual Reviews Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Annual Review of Sociology
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Key Words
* Abstract In recent years, the concept of boundaries has been at the center of
influential research agendas in anthropology,history, political science, social psychology, and sociology. This article surveys some of these developments while describing
the value added provided by the concept, particularlyconcerning the study of relational
processes. It discusses literatures on (a) social and collective identity; (b) class, ethnic/racial, and gender/sex inequality; (c) professions, knowledge, and science; and (d)
communities, national identities, and spatial boundaries. It points to similar processes
at work across a range of institutions and social locations. It also suggests paths for
furtherdevelopments, focusing on the relationship between social and symbolic boundaries, cultural mechanisms for the production of boundaries, difference and hybridity,
and cultural membership and group classifications.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the idea of "boundaries" has come to play a key role in important
new lines of scholarship across the social sciences. It has been associated with
research on cognition, social and collective identity, commensuration, census categories, cultural capital, cultural membership, racial and ethnic group positioning,
hegemonic masculinity, professional jurisdictions, scientific controversies, group
rights, immigration, and contentious politics, to mention only some of the most
visible examples. Moreover, boundaries and its twin concept, "borders," have been
the object of a number of special issues in scholarly journals, edited volumes, and
conferences (e.g., for a list in anthropology, see Alvarez 1995; for sociology, see
the activities of the Symbolic Boundaries Network of the American Sociological
Association at http://www.people.virginia.edu/-bb3v/symbound).
This renewed interest builds on a well-established tradition since boundaries
are part of the classical conceptual tool-kit of social scientists. Already in The
Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim (1965) defined the realm of the
sacred in contrast to that of the profane. While Marx often depicted the proletariat
as the negation of the capitalist class, The Eighteenth Brumaire (Marx 1963) is
0360-0572/02/0811-0167$14.00
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
167
168
LAMONT* MOLNAR
still read for its accountof the dynamicsbetween severalclass boundaries.As for
Weber,his analysis of ethnic and status groups continues to stand out as one of
the most influentialsections in Economyand Society (1978) (on the historyof the
concept, see Lamont2001a and Schwartz1981).
Unsurprisingly,the multifariousrecent developmentsaroundthe concept of
boundarieshave yet to lead to syntheticefforts.Greaterintegrationis desirablebecause it could facilitatethe identificationof theoreticallyilluminatingsimilarities
and differencesin how boundariesare drawnacross contextsand types of groups,
and at the social psychological, cultural,and structurallevels. Whereasempirical
researchalmost always concerns a particulardependentvariableor a subareaof
sociology, focusing on boundariesthemselves may generate new theoreticalinsights abouta whole rangeof generalsocial processespresentacrossa wide variety
of apparentlyunrelatedphenomena-processes such as boundary-work,boundary
crossing, boundariesshifting, and the territorialization,politicization,relocation,
and institutionalizationof boundaries.We do not pretendto provide such a grand
synthesis in the limited space we have at our disposal:Given the currentstage of
the literature,such a summing-upis impossible, at least in a review article format. Instead,we endeavorto begin clearing the terrainby sketchingsome of the
most interestingand promisingdevelopmentsacross a numberof disciplines. We
also highlight the value added broughtby the concept of boundariesto specific
substantivetopics, and we point to a few areasof possible theorybuilding.These
tasks are particularlyimportantbecause citationpatternssuggest thatresearchers
who drawon the concept of boundariesare largely unawareof the use to which it
is put beyond theirown specialties and across the social sciences.
One generaltheme thatrunsthroughthis literatureacross the disciplines is the
searchfor understandingthe role of symbolic resources(e.g., conceptualdistinctions, interpretivestrategies,culturaltraditions)in creating,maintaining,contesting, or even dissolving institutionalizedsocial differences(e.g., class, gender,race,
territorialinequality). In order to capturethis process better,we think it is useful to introducea distinctionbetween symbolic and social boundaries.Symbolic
boundariesareconceptualdistinctionsmadeby social actorsto categorizeobjects,
people, practices,and even time and space. They are tools by which individuals
andgroupsstruggleover andcome to agreeupon definitionsof reality.Examining
them allows us to capturethe dynamic dimensions of social relations, as groups
compete in the production,diffusion, and institutionalizationof alternativesystems and principlesof classifications.Symbolic boundariesalso separatepeople
into groups and generate feelings of similarityand group membership(Epstein
1992, p. 232). They are an essential mediumthroughwhich people acquirestatus
and monopolize resources.
Social boundariesare objectifiedforms of social differencesmanifestedin unequal access to and unequaldistributionof resources(materialand nonmaterial)
and social opportunities.They are also revealed in stable behavioralpatternsof
association,as manifestedin connubialityandcommensality.Only when symbolic
boundariesare widely agreedupon can they take on a constrainingcharacterand
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
169
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170
LAMONT* MOLNAR
positively throughin-group/out-groupcomparisonlead social groups to attempt
to differentiatethemselves from each other"(Tajfel& Turner1985, pp. 16-17).
This process of differentiationaims "to maintainand achieve superiorityover an
out-groupon some dimension"(Tajfel & Turner1985, pp. 16-17; also Hogg &
Abrams1988). Hence, in-groupfavoritismis common,especially amonghigh status groups (Brewer& Brown 1998; for reviews, see Sidanius& Pratto 1999 and
Prentice& Miller 1999).
Social identity theory has been particularlyconcerned with the permeability
of what we call symbolic and social boundariesand its effect on individualand
collective mobility strategy.It has been arguedthat perceivinggroup boundaries
as impermeablemakes social changemore likely for low-statusgroups:They then
engage in social competitionas opposed to individualmobility (Ellemers 1993).
Moreover,social psychologists show that people adapt to their environment
throughcognitive categorizationand stereotyping.Also concernedwith symbolic
boundaries,Fiske (1998) in particulararguesthat in-groupsand out-groupsresult
from this automaticprocess, which generatescategorizationby race and gender.
It also affectshow we accountfor people's success andfailures-external/environmental,as opposed to internal/individualand self-blamingexplanationsare more
readily used for males thanfor females (Crockeret al. 1998).
Among sociologists, Jenkins'(1996, Ch. 4) workon collective identitycomplements thatof social psychologists. He describescollective identity as constituted
by a dialectic interplayof processes of internalandexternaldefinition.On the one
hand,individualsmust be able to differentiatethemselvesfrom othersby drawing
on criteriaof communityand a sense of sharedbelonging within their subgroup.
On the otherhand,this internalidentificationprocess must be recognizedby outsiders for an objectifiedcollective identity to emerge (for similar arguments,see
Cornell& Hartman1997, Ch. 4; Brubaker& Cooper2000, pp. 14-21).
Groupboundariesalso figure prominentlyin the work on the role played by
collective identity in social movements (e.g., Taylor & Whittier 1992). Melluci
(1996) emphasizesthecentralityof social networksin generatingshareddefinitions
of "us/them"and in collective mobilization.Similarly,W. Gamson (1992) shows
that the impact of collective identity and group boundarieson the framing of
political issues varies with the compositionof the group.For their part,using an
ecological approachakin to Abbott (1995), McAdam et al. (2001, Ch. 5) study
the constitutionof social actorsthroughboundaries,which they view as a central
process in contentious politics. Drawing on a large number of historical case
studies,they show how the formationof categoriesof social actors(whatthey call
"categoryformation")results from the invention and borrowingof boundaries,
as well as from encountersbetween previouslydistinct and competingnetworks.
TheirworkcomplementsTilly's (1998) on the productionof inequality,which also
concernedmechanismsof social boundaryformation.
More work is needed to integratethe psychological, cultural,and social mechanisms involved in this process of boundaryconstruction. Sociologists working on discrimination,such as Reskin (2000), are linking systematicpatternsof
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
171
AND GENDER/SEXUAL
CLASS,ETHNIC/RACIAL,
INEQUALITY
Building on Weber (1978), the voluminous scholarshipon class, race, and gender inequalityanalyzes closure between social groups (e.g., Parkin1974). While
the earlierwork centeredon closure and social boundaries,symbolic boundaries
have become more central to this literaturein the last twenty years. From the
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172
LAMONT? MOLNAR
researchon class boundaries,we center our attentionon culturalconsumption,
class markers,and class reproductionand on how the self is shapedby class inequality because these two topics have generateda particularlylarge literature
(only partiallycoveredhere).The section on ethnic andracialinequalitydiscusses
the institutionalizationof classificationsystems, threatsto grouppositioning, and
ethnic and racialidentity.The section on genderand sexual inequalityfocuses on
how gender and sexual categories shape expectationsand work life. These three
sections describe the same fundamentalsocial process at work, that of the relational definition of identity and social position, and stress the need for a more
cumulativeresearchagenda(see also Tilly 1998).
Class Inequality
Particularlygerminalin the study of class boundarieshas been the work of Pierre
Bourdieuandhis collaborators,andespecially Bourdieu& Passeron(1972, transl.
1977) who proposedthatthe lower academicperformanceof workingclass childrenis accountedfor not by lower ability butby institutionalbiases againstthem.
They suggested that schools evaluate all children on the basis of their cultural
capital-their familiaritywith the cultureof the dominantclass-and thus penalize lower-class students.Having an extensive vocabulary,wide-rangingcultural
references, and command of high culture are valued by the school system; students from higher social backgroundsacquirethese class resourcesin theirhome
environment.Hence, lower class children are more strenuouslyselected by the
educationalsystem. They are not aware of it, as they remain under the spell of
the cultureof the dominantclass. They blame themselves for their failure,which
leads them to dropout or to sortthemselvesinto lower prestigeeducationaltracks.
Hence, directexclusion, overselection,self-exclusion,andlower level trackingare
key mechanisms in the reproductionof inequality and social boundaries.They
are generatedby symbolic class markers-symbolic boundaries-valued by the
Frencheducationalsystemandarecentralin the creationof social class boundaries.
In Distinction, Bourdieu (1984, transl. 1984) broadenedthis analysis to the
world of tastes and culturalpractices at large. He showed how the logic of class
struggle extends to the realm of taste and lifestyle and that symbolic classification is key to the reproductionof class privileges: Dominant groups generally
succeed in legitimizing their own cultureand ways as superiorto those of lower
classes, throughoppositionssuch as distinguished/vulgar,aesthetic/practical,and
pure/impure(p. 245). They therebyexercise "symbolic violence," i.e., impose a
specific meaningas legitimatewhile concealingthe powerrelationsthatarethe basis of its force (Bourdieu& Passeron1972, transl.1977, p. 4). They use theirlegitimatecultureto markculturaldistanceandproximity,to monopolizeprivileges,and
to exclude and recruitnew occupantsto high statuspositions (p. 31)-translating
symbolic distinctioninto closure. Hence, throughthe incorporationof habitus or
culturaldispositions,culturalpracticeshave inescapableand unconsciousclassificatoryeffects that shape social positions by defining (social) class boundaries.
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
173
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174
LAMONTE MOLNAR
in which setting"(p. 249). Peterson& Kern(1996) documenta shift in high-status
persons from snobbishexclusion to "omnivorousappropriation"in their musical
taste. In the United States, these studies all call for a more multidimensionalunderstandingof culturalcapital(a type of symbolicboundary)as a basis for drawing
social boundaries,andthey counterBourdieu'spostulatethatthe value of tastes is
definedrelationallythrougha binaryor oppositionallogic.
A numberof sociologists are now engaged in analyzinghow the self is shaped
by class andis producedthroughboundariesanddifferences.Forinstance,drawing
on extensivefieldworkwith poor,workingclass, andmiddleclass families, Lareau
(2000) showsimportantdifferencesin childhoodsocializationacrosssocial classes,
withblackandwhiteupper-middleclass parentsexplicitlyfavoring"concertedcultivation"and the pursuitof self-actualization,as opposed to the "naturalgrowth"
advocatedby workingclass people. The anthropologistJohn Jackson(2001) dissects how African-Americansliving in Harlem understandand perform symbolic class boundariesin the contextof intra-racialrelationship.Alford Young,Jr.
(2001) provides a rich analysis of the identity of poor young black men and of
how they accountfor theirdistinctive social position in relationto that of others.
These studiespoint to the role of relationalityin the definitionof identity.As with
the morerecentliteratureon the fluidityof culturalboundaries,it would be useful
to explore the extent to which this process follows a binarylogic as opposed to a
multiplexone. In otherwords, we need to explore whetheridentities are defined
in oppositionto a privileged"Other,"or in juxtapositionto a numberof possible
"others":Symbolic boundariesmay be more likely to generatesocial boundaries
when they are drawn in opposition to one group as opposed to multiple, often
competingout-groups.
Ethnic/Racial Inequality
The conceptof boundaryhas been centralto the studyof ethnicandracialinequality as an alternativeto more static culturalor even biological theories of ethnic
and racial differences. Particularlygerminalhere was Norwegian anthropologist
FredrickBarth(1969) who rejecteda view of ethnicitythatstressedsharedculture
in favor of a more relationalapproachemphasizingthat feelings of communality
aredefinedin oppositionto the perceivedidentityof otherracialandethnicgroups
(also Hechter 1975, Horowitz 1985). Among the severalrecent contributionsinspiredby this work,Verdery(1994) analyzedhow a nationstateacts as a producer
of differencesandas an internalhomogenizerof populations(also Starr1992). Following Davis (1991) and others, the study of the productionof racial and ethnic
classificationby the state (at the level of census categories)has become a growth
industryin the United States, and it is a particularlyfruitful terrainfor studying shifts in the definitionof social boundaries.Until recently,these categories
forced people to chose only one racial category,as it assumedthat racial groups
were mutually exclusive (Lee 1993). In the last few years, Shanahan& Olzak
(1999) and Gans (1999) have analyzed the factors that are leading to a growing
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
175
Genderand SexualInequality
The literatureon gender includes a rich treatmentof boundariesdefined as "the
complex structures-physical, social, ideological, andpsychological-which establish the differencesandcommonalitiesbetweenwomen andmen, amongwomen,
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176
LAMONT* MOLNAR
andamongmen, shapingandconstrainingthe behaviorandattitudesof eachgender
group"(Gerson& Peiss 1985, p. 318).
At the social psychological level, Ridgeway (1997) explains gender inequality in terms of interactionalprocesses and the constructionof boundaries.She
arguesthat we "automaticallyand unconsciously gender-categorizeany specific
otherto whom we must relate"and thatwhen "occupationalroles are activatedin
the process of perceivinga specific person, they become nested within the prior,
automaticcategorizationof that person as male or female, and take on a slightly
differentmeaningas a result"(1997, p. 220). Hence, male workersare believed to
be more competentthan female workers.Those who violate gender boundaries,
concerningappropriatenormsfor time managementfor instance,often experience
punishmentand stigmatizationin the workplace,or even at home (Epstein2000,
1988)-symbolic boundariestranslatedinto social boundaries.Similarly,in her
studyof body managementon college campuses,Martin(2001) shows how sorority girls andfeminist and athletestudentsareconfrontedwith boundarypatrolling
practicesconcerninghegemonic femininity (a concept she derives from Connell
1987). Earlierstudies on the accomplishmentof gender are also primarilyconcerned with the creationof gender boundaries,althoughthey may not explicitly
use this term (West & Zimmerman1987).
Sociologists have also analyzedthe creationof gender-basedsocial boundaries
in organizationsandprofessions(Reskin& Hartmann1986), focusing on the glass
ceiling (Epstein 1981, Kay & Hagan 1999) and strategiesdeveloped to break it
(e.g., Lorber 1984). Boundary maintenanceis analyzed through the rules that
applyto men and women workingin stronglygenderedoccupations.Forinstance,
Williams (1995) shows that in occupationssuch as nursing,men are given more
leeway thanwomen andmove fasterup the professionalladder.At a more general
level, Tilly (1998) argues that dichotomouscategories such as male and female
(butalso white andblack)areused by dominantgroupsto marginalizeothergroups
and block theiraccess to resources.He extends the Weberianscheme by pointing
to various mechanismsby which this is accomplished,such as exploitationand
opportunityhoarding.He asserts that durableinequalitymost often results from
cumulative,individual,and often unnoticedorganizationalprocesses.
Sociologists have also writtenon sexual boundaries.For instance,Stein (1997)
analyzeshow feministscollectively contestedthe dominantmeaningof lesbianism
and how the symbolic boundariesaroundthe lesbian category changed over the
courseof the movement'sinfluence:They "reframedthe meaning[of homosexuality], suggestingthatthe boundariesseparatingheterosexualityand homosexuality
were in fact permeable"(p. 25) insteadof essentialized.Also focusing on symbolic
boundaries,J. Gamson(1998) analyzes how the portrayalof gay people on entertainmenttelevision validatesmiddle class professionalsand gays who maintaina
distinctionbetweenthepublicandtheprivate,butthatit also delegitimizesworking
class gay people. Brekhus(1996) describessocial markingandmentalcoloringas
two basic processes by which "deviant"sexual identityis definedagainsta neutral
standard.
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
177
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178
LAMONT? MOLNAR
usedto defineandinstitutionalizetheboundariesof the professionagainstoutsiders
constitutethe essence of the "professionalizationproject"(Sarfatti-Larson1979).
This conflict-orientedtheoryincorporatedan understandingof professionalization
as a normativeframeworkof "social and ideological control"(p. 238).
In a similar vein, critical analyses of education examined the credentialing
system as a mechanism throughwhich monopolistic closure in the professions
is achieved. Collins (1979) found a surprisinglyweak correlationbetween the
requirementsof educationalcredentialsand the skill/knowledgerequirementsof
jobs. On the basis of this empiricalobservationhe arguedthateducationserves to
socialize prospectiveprofessionalsinto statusculturesby drawinga line between
insidersandoutsiders(also Manza1992, p. 279). Closuremodelsof theprofessions
show greataffinitywith, andarein fact integratedinto, a moregeneraltheoryof the
productionof inequalitythroughsocial closure and networks(e.g., Collins 2001).
Abbott (1988) shifted the analytical focus from the organizationalforms to
the contents of professionallife, and from the struggles of professionalsagainst
outsidersto the struggles of professionals among themselves. In contrastto the
closuremodel thatdescribedprofessionsas a closed system(wherea professionis a
clearly boundednaturalanalyticalunit emergingfrom functionalspecialization),
Abbott argued that professions constitute an open, ecological system in which
individualprofessions exist in interdependence.They compete with one another
forjurisdictionalmonopolies,for the legitimacyof theirclaimedexpertise,thereby
constitutinga constantlychangingsystemof professions.This competitionusually
assumes the form of disputes over jurisdictionalboundaries,i.e., it is waged to
redrawthe social boundariesbetween professions.
The literatureon professionshas paid less attentionto how boundariesbetween
expertsand laymen (e.g., professionalsand manuallaborers)are enacted in work
situations. Vallas (2001) aims to expand existing research in this direction by
looking at distinctionsbetweenengineersand skilled manualworkersin six paper
mills at a timeof technologicalchange.He sees professionalboundariesas resulting
not only from interprofessionalcompetition a la Abbott, but also from disputes
with subordinatesat the workplace,as thereis often considerableoverlapbetween
the tasks they are expected to perform.He traces how culturalboundariesin the
form of scientific and technical knowledge (the mark of the trained engineer)
providea salient mechanismfor the productionof social boundaries.At the same
time he notes that the deploymentof symbolic boundariesis a contestedprocess,
the outcome of which is largely context dependent. His work underscoresthe
importanceof consideringthe interfacebetween dominantand dominatedgroups
in the productionof symbolic and social boundaries.
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
179
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180
LAMONTE MOLNAR
Universitythat helps us understandwhy Henry Louis Gates goes to such length
to oppose afrocentricity.Gal & Irvine(1995) describethe field of sociolinguistics
as institutionalizingdifferences among languages and dialects and as producing
linguistic ideologies that are an intrinsicpart of disciplinaryboundaries.Fuller
(1991) surveysthe canonicalhistoriographyof five social science disciplines. He
contendsthat"disciplinaryboundariesprovidethe structurefor a varietyof functions, rangingfrom the allocationof cognitive authorityand materialresourcesto
the establishmentof reliable access to some extra-socialreality"(p. 302). These
studiespoint to the presenceof relational(andoften political) processes operating
across institutionsand contexts.
The analyticalfocus on boundariesalso highlights the countless parallelsand
interconnectionsbetween the developmentof the professionsanddisciplines. The
historianThomasBender(1984) arguesthatthe creationof specializedandcertified
communities of discourse, a segmented structureof "professionaldisciplines,"
was partlytriggeredby profoundhistoricalchanges in the spatialorganizationof
the nineteenthcenturyAmericancity (the locus of intellectuals)thatincreasingly
emphasized exclusion over inclusion, segregationover diversity.Recent works
on the historical trajectoriesof social science disciplines in the United States
and Europe document a remarkablevariationin national profiles rooted in the
differentrelationshipsof the sciences to variouspartsof society such as the state,
professionals,andmarkets(Wagneret al. 1991a,b,Rueschemeyer& Skocpol 1996,
Fourcade-Gourinchas
2000).
In contrastto studies that so far treatedboundariesas markersof difference,
Susan Leigh Starand her collaboratorsconceptualizeboundariesas interfacesfacilitatingknowledgeproduction.Theyuse thisunderstandingof conceptualboundaries to explore how interrelatedsets of categories,i.e., systems of classification,
come to be delineated.They agree with Foucaultthatthe creationof classification
schemes by setting the boundariesof categories "valorizes some point of view
and silences another"(Bowker & Star 1999, p. 5), reflectingethical and political
choices andinstitutionalizingdifferences.But they point out thatthese boundaries
also act as importantinterfacesenablingcommunicationacross communities(by
virtue of standardization,for instance).They coin the term "boundaryobject"to
describe these interfaces that are key to developing and maintainingcoherence
across social worlds (Star & Griesemer 1989, p. 393). Boundaryobjects can be
materialobjects, organizationalforms, conceptual spaces or procedures.In the
spiritof the influential"materialturn"in science studies,they arguethatobjectsof
scientificinquiryinhabitmultipleintersectingsocial worldsjust as classifications
are also powerful technologies that may link thousandsof communities.In their
most recent study,Bowker & Star (1999) apply this analyticaltool to understand
how such classification systems as the InternationalClassificationof Diseases,
race classificationunderapartheidin SouthAfrica, the NursingInterventionClassification,and the classificationof viruses make the coordinationof social action
possible (on this point, see also Thenevot1984, Boltanski& Th6venot1991). They
view classifications as simultaneouslymaterialand symbolic, and as ecological
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
181
COMMUNITIES,NATIONALIDENTITIES,
AND SPATIALBOUNDARIES
Boundarieshave always been a centralconcern of studies of urbanand national
communities.Indeed,following Durkheim(1965), communitieshavebeen defined
by theirinternalsegmentationas muchas by theirexternalperimeter.Accordingly,
the literatureson symbolicandnetwork-drivencommunitieshave focused on these
very dimensions, again pointing to relational processes at work. Similarly, the
recentliteratureson nationalidentityand statebuildinghave looked at boundaries
andbordersto show thatplace, nation,andculturearenot necessarilyisomorphic.
They also pinpoint the extent to which national identity, like nation building,
is defined relationally and emerges from dynamic processes of interactionand
negotiationbetween local and nationalforces.
Communities
Research on boundary-workand communitycan be grouped in four categories.
First,thereis a long traditionof research,directlyinspiredby the Chicago School
of community studies, that concerns the internal symbolic boundariesof communities and largely emphasizes labeling and categorization(e.g. Erikson 1966,
Suttles 1968). Anderson(1999), on the poor blackneighborhoodsof Philadelphia,
points to the internalsegmentationof the world he studies, based on the distinctions thataremadeby respondentsthemselves-for instance,between"street"and
"decent"people (also Pattillo-McCoy1999). Among recentstudies,severalscholars have focused on the symbolic boundariesfound within specific institutional
spheres, such as religious communities.For instance, Becker (1999) studies how
religious communitiesbuild boundariesbetween themselves and "the public"by
analyzingthe discourseof largerreligious traditionsand how local congregations
reconfigurethe public-privatedivide. Lichterman(2001) explores how members
of conservativeandliberalChristiancongregationsdefinetheirbonds of solidarity
with variousgroups,exploringthe limits of whathe calls theirdefinitionsof "social
membership."
Second, a numberof sociologists tie communities,networks,and meaningsystems together(Gould 1995, White 1992, Tilly 1998). For instance,Gould (1995)
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182
LAMONTE MOLNAR
explains changes in the salience of class in collective mobilization in the 1848
French revolutionand the 1871 Paris Commune by the emergence of strongly
residentialneighborhoods,which made the local communitymore centralin mobilizing individualsby 1871 (p. 28). Hence, while the firstrevolutionactivatedthe
boundarybetween workersand the bourgeoisie,the second opposed city dwellers
and the state. Gould shows thatthe appealsof differentnetworksinvolved in the
productionof collective mobilizationwere responsiblefor the relativesalience of
these identitiesas bases for recruitment.His model posits that"meaningfulgroup
boundariesare predicatedon the presence (and perception)of common patterns
of durableties" (p. 19).
Third, there is a growing literatureon communitiesthat do not involve faceto-face contacts. According to Calhoun (1991), these indirect relationshipsinclude those mediatedby informationtechnology,technocraticorganizations,and
impersonalmarkets.They consist of a world of imagined personal connections
throughsome mediumsuch as television,visual or printedrepresentation,or tradition (Cerulo 1997, Swidler2001). They can also be large-scalecollectivitieswhere
membersare"linkedprimarilyby commonidentitiesbutminimallyby networksof
directlyinterpersonalrelationships-nation, races, classes, genders,Republicans,
Muslims and 'civilized' people" (Anderson1983, p. 96). Individualswithin such
categoricalcommunitieshave at theirdisposal commoncategorizationsystems to
differentiatebetween insiders and outsidersand common vocabulariesand symbols throughwhich they createa sharedidentity.People who sharesuch categories
can be consideredto be membersof the same symbolic communityeven if their
living conditionsvary in importantways (Hunter1974, Wuthnow1989, Lamont
1992, also Calhoun1991, p. 108).
In American sociology, one finds a large number of influential studies that
deal with symbolic and social boundarieswithin such communities.For instance,
Gusfield(1963) interpretsthe nineteenthcenturyAmericantemperancemovement
as a creationof small-townProtestantsaimingto bolstertheirsocial positionagainst
that of urbanCatholicimmigrants.Along similarlines, Luker(1984) shows that
Americananti-abortionand pro-choice activists have incompatiblebeliefs about
women's careers,family, sexuality,and reproduction,and that they talk past one
anotherand largely define themselves in opposition to one another.Alexander
(1992) provides a semiotic analysis of the symbolic codes of civic society that
suggests thatthe democraticcode involves cleardistinctionsbetweenthe pureand
the impurein definingthe appropriatecitizen.
These three lines of work on communitiesare complementedby more philosophical debates emerging from political theory circles concerning community
boundaries.Overthe past fifteenyears,communitariansandliberalshave time and
againengagedone anotherover the importanceof individualandgrouprights,pluralism,self-determination,andnationalism(Taylor1992, Spinner1994, Kymlicka
1995). A normativediscourseaboutthe possibility of liberalnationalismand progressivecosmopolitanismattractedmuchattentionin the contextof the heightened
visibility of identity politics (Ignatieff 1993, Tamir 1993, Held 1996). Although
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
183
these debatesrarelyengage empiricalsocial science research,they arevery importantto the issue at handbecausethey addresssocial boundaryproblemsin termsof
political inclusionandexclusion, andthey focus on the responsibilitiesthathuman
beings have in relationto groupsof various"others."
A more cumulativeresearchagenda should involve comparingsymbolic and
social boundarieswithin symbolic communities and network-drivencommunities. It would be particularlyimportantto determinewhetherthese two types of
communities operate similarly; to what extent widely available schemas shape
the drawingof boundarieswithin face-to-face communities(e.g., Ikegami2000,
p. 1007); andhow boundary-workgeneratedby the media(e.g., Gilens 1999) feeds
into the social boundariesthatstructurethe environmentin which individualslive
and work.
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184
LAMONT* MOLNAR
a sense of inherentduality and promote a "process of mirrorimaging" (1992a,
p. 17) where the constructionof othernessconstantly takes place on both sides
of the border(also Berdahl 1999). Througha sketch of the historical evolution
of the Swedish-Danishborder,L6fgren (1999) shows how bordersgrew increasingly nationalizedby the introductionof passports,for instance. The relational
approachused in these studies helps to highlight that nationalidentity overlaps
with otherforms of politicizeddifferencesuch as race, genderor sexuality.It links
the study of nationalidentity to the creationof modem subjects and systems of
social classification(Rosaldo 1989, Verdery1994, Ong 1996).
Researcherswho concentrateon borders(i.e., territorialboundaries)as instrumentalin the constructionof differenceusuallyexamineprocessesof nationbuilding. Forinstance,Bomemanreconstructsthe masternarrativesof nationbuildingin
East andWest Germanyafter 1945, underscoringthatthe "productionof different
nationswas a preconditionfor theirclaim to legitimatestatehood"(1992b, p. 45).
While the WestGermanstatehas successfullyconstructeda narrativeof prosperity
as a basis for a positive nationalidentity,the East Germanstate largely failed to
provideits citizens with a similarlycoherentcompetingnarrative.The process of
unificationexacerbatedproblemsof nationalidentificationas it called intoquestion
a notionthatpersonalidentity,home, culture,andnationwere discrete,territorially
distinctwholes (p. 58). Glaeser (2000) similarlydocumentsthe unificationof the
Berlin police to show how the disappearanceof the territorialboundaryleft almost intactthe deep divide betweenformerEast andWestGermansas differences
continue to be reproducedthrougha myriad of symbolic boundaries(temporal,
sensual, moral,public/private).Drawingon the field of rhetoric,he also points to
basic mechanismsof symbolic boundary-workby which East and West Germans
differentiatethemselvesfrom one another,focusing on "projectsof identifications
of selves" based on metaphors,metonymies,and synecdoches (p. 49).
Otherstudies treatbordersas interstitialzones and are largely concernedwith
have inhow processes of decolonization,globalization,and transnationalization
and
creolized
national
identities
(for
creasingly deterritorialized,hybridized,
reviews, see Gupta & Ferguson 1992, Alvarez 1995, Kearney 1995). Anthropologists, joined lately by historians,have mostly concentratedtheir attentionon
the borderareabetween the United States and Mexico as a paradigmaticresearch
site. They treatthe borderas a culturalinterfacebetween these societies that has
produced a range of multiplex and transnationalidentities such as "Chicano,"
"Latino,"and "Hispanic,"moving beyond the more monolithic categories of
"Mexicans" and "Americans"(Anzaldua 1987, Kearney 1991, Alvarez 1995,
Gutierrez 1999). According to historianDavid Thelen (1999, p. 441), "In this
new perspectivebordersbecame not sites for the division of people into separate
spheresand opposingidentitiesand groups,but sites for interactionbetween individualsfrommanybackgrounds,hybridization,creolization,andnegotiation"(also
Rosaldo 1989).
Challenges to clearly defined and neatly boundednationalidentities come in
the form of flows of capital, technologies, goods, and people across national
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
185
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186
LAMONT. MOLNAR
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
187
Erickson (1996), and Peterson & Kern (1996) have framed this as an empirical
issue by exploringlevels of tolerance,exclusion, and cultural"omnivorousness."
Along the same lines, the recentanthropologicalliteraturehas stressedthe permeability of social boundariesand hybridizationprocesses. Territorialbordershave
come to be conceived as interstitialzones that produce liminality and creolization. Much more needs to be done in terms of exploring the conditions under
which boundariesgeneratedifferentiationor dissolve to producehybridityor new
formsof categorization.Moreover,the porousnessof boundariesshouldbe studied
systematicallyacross class, race/ethnicand gender/sexuallines.
The second approachcould undertakethe systematic cataloguing of the key
mechanismsassociatedwith the activation,maintenance,transpositionor the dispute, bridging, crossing and dissolution of boundaries.The reviewed literature
suggests severalmechanismscentralto the productionof boundaries.On the cognitive/socialpsychologicalside, for instance,Ridgeway(1997) andJenkins(1996)
describe processes of stereotyping,self-identification,and categorization.At the
level of discourse,Glaeser(2000) drawson rhetoricto pointto mechanismsof identification of the self such as metonymy,metaphor,and synecdoche, and Gieryn
describesthe "credibilitycontests"in science thattake the form of expulsion, expansion andprotectionof autonomy.Bowker& Star(1999) and Thevenot(1984),
for their part, focus not only on the exclusive aspects of boundaries,but also on
their role in connecting social groups and makingcoordinationpossible.1 Just as
Tilly (1998) systematized the mechanisms involved in the productionof social
boundaries,thereis a need for a more exhaustivegraspof its culturalmechanisms,
as well as of their articulationwith social mechanismsand cognitive mechanisms
(on this last point, see also McAdamset al. 2001). Focusingon such abstractmechanismswill help us move beyond an accumulationof disconnectedcase studiesall
too frequentin the researchon class, race, and gender.Developing a bettergrasp
of the differencemade by the content of symbolic boundariesin the construction
of cognitive and social boundariescould also be a real contributionfrom cultural
sociology to other,more strictlysocial structural,areasof sociological analysis.It
could also adda new dimensionto recentattemptsto rethinkclass analysis(Grusky
& Sorensen 1998, Portes2001).
A third approachcould integrate the existing literatureby focusing on the
theme of cultural membership.The notion of boundariesis crucial for analyzing how social actors constructgroups as similarand differentand how it shapes
theirunderstandingof theirresponsibilitiestowardsuch groups(Lamont2000). In
line with recent studies of commensurationprocesses that analyze how different
entitiescomparebasedon variousmetrics(Espeland& Stevens 1998), we advocate
ISymbolicboundariesin the social sciences and humanitiesdisciplines (particularlyconcerning the content of sharednotion of "top-notch"and "less stellar"work) is an area of
coordinationthathas been neglectedto date, and thatmay deeply enrichour understanding
of differencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthe more interpretiveandempiricallybased (as well
as disciplinaryand interdisciplinary)academicfields (Lamont& Guetzkow2001).
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188
LAMONT 3 MOLNAR
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
challenges for social and political theory.
In Blurred Boundaries: Migration, Ethnicity, Citizenship,ed. R Baub6ck, J Rundell,
pp. 17-52. Brookfield,CT:Ashgate
BeckerP. 1999. Congregationsin Conflict:Cultural Models of Local Religious Life. New
York:CambridgeUniv. Press
BenderT. 1984. The erosion of public culture:
cities, discourses, and professional disciplines. In The Authorityof Experts. Studies in
History and Theory,ed. TL Haskell,pp. 84107. Bloomington:IndianaUniv. Press
BerdahlD. 1999. Wherethe WorldEnded:Reunificationand Identityin the GermanBorderland.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Blair-Loy M. 2001. Culturalconstructionsof
family schemas: the case of women finance
executives. GenderSoc. 15(5):687-709
Blumer H. 1958. Race prejudiceas a sense of
groupposition. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1:3-7
Bobo L, HutchingsVL. 1996. Perceptionsof
racial group competition: extending Blumer's theory of group position to a multiracial social context.Am. Sociol. Rev.61:95172
BoltanskiL, Th6venotL. 1991. De la justification. Les economies de la grandeur. Paris:
Gallimard
Borneman J. 1992a. Belonging in the Two
Berlins: Kin, State,Nation. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press
Boneman J. 1992b. State, territory,and identity formationin the postwarBerlins, 19451989. Cult.Anthropol.7(1):45-63
Bourdieu P. 1979. Distinction: A Social Critiqueof theJudgmentofTaste.Transl.R Nice,
1984. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press
(FromFrench)
BourdieuP. 1984. HomoAcademicus.Transl.P
Collier, 1988. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv.
Press
BourdieuP, PasseronJ-C. 1972. Reproduction
in Education,Society,and Culture.Transl.R
Nice, 1977. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage (From
French)
Bowker G, StarSL. 1999. Sorting ThingsOut:
Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press
189
BrekhusW. 1996. Social markingandthe mental coloring of identity: sexual identity construction and maintenance in the United
States. Sociol. Forces 11:497-521
Brewer MB, Brown RJ. 1998. Intergrouprelations. See Gilbertet al. 1998, pp. 554-94
BrubakerR. 1992. Citizenshipand Nationhood
in France and Germany. Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniv. Press
BrubakerR,CooperF.2000. Beyond"identity."
TheorySoc. 29:1-47
Bryson B. 1996. "Anythingbut heavy metal":
symbolicexclusionandmusicaldislikes.Am.
Sociol. Rev.61(5):884-99
Calhoun C. 1991. Indirect relationships and
imaginedcommunities:large-scalesocial integrationandthe transformationof everyday
life. In Social Theoryfor a Changing Society, ed. P Bourdieu,JS Coleman.pp. 95-121.
Boulder, CO: Westview, NY: Russell Sage
Found.
Cerulo KA. 1997. Identity construction:new
issues, new directions. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
23:385409
Collins R. 1979. The CredentialSociety. New
York:Academic
Collins R. 2001. InteractionChainRituals.Unpublishedms., Dep. Sociology, Univ. Penn.
Connell RW. 1987. Gender and Power. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. Press
CookKS, Fine GA, HouseJ. 1995. Sociological
Perspectivesin Social Psychology.Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Cornell S, HartmannD. 1997. Ethnicity and
Race. MakingIdentityin a Changing World.
ThousandOaks, CA: Pine Fore
Crocker J, Major B, Steele C. 1998. Social
stigma. See Gilbertet al. 1998, pp. 504-53
DarntonR. 1984. Philosopherstrim the tree of
knowledge: the epistemological strategyof
the Encyclopedie. In The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French CulturalHistory,pp. 191-215. New York:Basic
Books
Davis JF. 1991. Who's Black? One Nation's
Definition.UniversityPark:Penn.StateUniv.
Press
Davis NZ. 1975. Society and Culturein Early
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190
LAMONT * MOLNAR
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindszey G, eds. 1998.
Handbookof Social Psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill
Gilens M. 1999. WhyAmericansHate Welfare:
Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty
Policy. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Glaeser A. 2000. Divided in Unity: Identity,
Germany and the Berlin Police. Chicago:
Chicago Univ. Press
Gould RV. 1995. Insurgent Identities. Class,
Community,andProtestinParisfrom1848 to
the Commune.Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress
Grusky DBV, Sorensen JB. 1998. Can class
analysis be salvaged? Am. J. Soc. 103(5):
1187-234
GuptaA, FergusonJ. 1992. Space, identity,and
the politics of difference. Cult. Anthropol.
7(1):6-24
GusfieldJ. 1963.SymbolicCrusade:StatusPolitics and the American TemperanceMovement.Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press
Guti6rrezDG. 1999. Migration,emergentethnicity,andthe "thirdspace":the shiftingpolitics of nationalismin GreaterMexico.J. Am.
Hist. 86(2):481-518
Hacking I. 1992. Worldmaking by kind making: child abusefor example.In How Classification Works:Nelson Goodmanamong the
Social Sciences. ed. M Douglas, DH Hull,
pp. 180-238. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.
Press
Hall JR. 1992.The capital(s)of cultures:a nonholistic approachto status situations:class,
gender,and ethnicity."See Lamont& Fournier 1992, pp. 257-88
Halle D. 1993. Inside Culture.Art and Class in
theAmericanHome.Chicago:Univ.Chicago
Press
HannerzU. 1992. CulturalComplexity.Studies
in the Social Organizationof Meaning.New
York:ColumbiaUniv. Press
Hays S. 1996. The CulturalContradictionsof
Motherhood.New Haven:Yale Univ. Press
Hechter M. 1975. Internal Colonialism: The
Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Heimer CA. 1992. Doing your job and help-
191
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192
LAMONT ? MOLNAR
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
Massey D, Denton NA. 1993.AmericanApartheid: Segregation and the Making of the
Underclass.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv.
Press
McAdamD, TarrowS, Tilly C. 2001. Dynamics
of Contention.New York:CambridgeUniv.
Press
Melluci A. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the InformationAge. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press
Moore K. 1996. Organizingintegrity:American science and the creationof public interest organizations,1955-1975. Am.J. Sociol.
101(6):1592-627
MorawskaE. 2001. Cultural repertoires'in a
structurationprocess. Theoretical and research implications. Presented at Annu.
Meet. Am. Sociol Assoc., 39th, Anaheim,
CA
NewmanKS. 1999.No ShameinMyGame:The
WorkingPoor in the Inner City. New York:
Knopf
Nippert-Eng CE. 1995. Home and Work.
Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Ong A. 1996. Culturalcitizenship as subjectmaking.Immigrantsnegotiateracialandcultural boundariesin the United States. Curr.
Anthropol.37(5):737-62
Parkin F. 1974. Strategies of closure in class
formation.In The Social Analysis of Class
Structure,pp. 1-18. London:Tavistock
Pattillo-McCoyM. 1999. Black Picket Fences.
Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle
Class. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Peterson RA, Kern R. 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore.Am. Sociol. Rev. 61:900-7
PortesA. 2001. Leaving the ancestorsbehinds:
the case for a flexible approachto class analysis. Polit. Power Soc. Theory 14:33345
Portes A, RumbautRG. 2001. Legacies. The
Story of the ImmigrantSecond Generation.
Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Prentice DA, Miller DT. 1999. Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming
Group Conflicts. New York: Russell Sage
Found.
Ragin CC. 1987. The ComparativeMethod:
193
MovingBeyondQualitativeand Quantitative
Strategies.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Reicher S, Hopkins N. 2001. Psychology and
the end of history.A critiqueand a proposal
for the psychology of social categorization.
Polit. Psychol. 22(2):383-407
ReskinBB. 2000. TheorizingEmploymentDiscrimination.Presentedat InequalitySummer
Inst., Multidisciplinaryprogramon Inequality and Social Policy, HarvardUniv., June
14-16
Reskin BB, HartmannH, eds. 1986. Women's
Work,Men's Work:Sex Segregationon the
Job. Washington,DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Ridgeway CL. 1997. Interactionand the conservation of gender inequality:considering
employment.Am. Sociol. Rev.62:218-35
RiederJ. 1985. Canarsie:TheJews andItalians
of Brooklynagainst Liberalism.Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniv. Press
Roediger D. 1991. The Wages of Whiteness:
Race and the Makingof the AmericanWorking Class. London:Verso
Rosaldo R. 1993. Cultureand Truth:The Remakingof Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon
Rosenfield S. 1998. Social Inequalityand the
Self. Presented at Culture and Inequality
Workshop,Dep. Sociol., PrincetonUniv.,NJ
RueschemeyerD, Skocpol T, eds. 1996. States,
Social Knowledge,and the Origins of Modern Social Policies. Princeton,NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Saguy A. 2002. Defining Sexual Harassment
in France and the United States. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press. In press
Sahlins P. 1989. Boundaries: The Making of
France and Spain in the Pyrenees.Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Sarfatti-LarsonM. 1979. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Schwartz B. 1981. Vertical Classification. A
Study in Structuralismand the Sociology of
Knowledge.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Sewell WH Jr. 1992. A theoryof structure:duality, agency, and transformation.Am. J. Sociol. 98:1-29
ShanahanS, Olzak S. 1999. The effects of immigrantdiversityand ethnic competitionon
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194
LAMONT ? MOLNAR
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
WeberM. 1978. Economy and Society, Vol. 1.
Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
West C, ZimmermanD. 1987. Doing gender.
GenderSoc. 1(1):125-51
White H. 1992. A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv.
Press
Williams CL. 1995. Still a Man's World:Men
Who Do "Women's"Work.Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Wilson TM, Donnan H, eds. 1998. Border
Identities: Nation and State at InternationalFrontiers.New York:CambridgeUniv.
Press
WuthnowR. 1989. Communitiesof Discourse:
Ideology and Social Structure in the Ref-
195
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions