Cultural backgrounds affect the social forms of theory production shaping traditions of social theory in the United States, Britain, France and Germany the changing contributions of which to world sociology can be summarized as revitalization of European social theory. As respective influences of American, Asian, and European culture rearrange to reflect the shifting international balance among the three regions, sociological discipline also participates in the process where European social thought undergoes revitalization vis-a-vis long period when American sociology prevailed. After World War II the United States has established significant presence in sociology for the reasons of having developed leading academic system, dominated the world in political affairs, expanded to commerically encompass the world economy, and forged major international organizations (Munch 1991: 314). The dominance of American sociology was based on the integration of research and teaching on the level of graduate school and on the institutionalized competition of academic instutitions on a national scale. The failure to introduce research-oriented graduate training, the lack of market competition among academic schools, and the isolation within and across national boundaries of scientific schools account for simultaneous decline of European universities (Munch 1991: 314).
In this context American sociology has established itself as professionalized discipline whereas European sociology, by contrast, has not had access to comparable organizational resources of large competitive departments. However, within economically, politically, and culturally policentric world, European Union reemerges on the basis of dramatically intensified "economic transactions, concerted political decision-making, communal ties, and cultural communication" (Munch 1991: 315) among its constituent nations that together engage in non-ideological competition with the United States and Southeast Asia in areas of economy, politics, association, and culture. As a consequence, the world dominance of American sociology will be replaced by a horizontally policentric system where European sociology becomes once again one of the three leading schools of the discipline. Rise to dominance of American sociology has been accompanied by the preeminance of structural functionalism paradigm (Parsons [1937] 1968. 1951, 1967, 1977, 1978; Merton [1949] 1968), positivistic quantitative methodology (Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg 1955), leading journals organizing scientific community - American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, and Social Forces -, unified academic market with controlling agency of the journals, and highly reputed academic institutions promoting them - Harvard and Columbia (Munch 1991: 315).
Synthesized out of British anthropology, Anglo Saxon empiricism, Italitan positivism, French positivism and organicism, and German historicism and idealism, structural functionalism (Merton [1948] 1968; Parsons [1937] 1968) has reflected American society of insitutionalized individualism, instrumental activism, intersecting voluntary associations, common citizenship, institutionalized political democracy, party competition, minor political cleavages, and capitalist mass production (Munch 1991: 315-316). While each European sociological tradition had only partial ability to account for historical variability of social phenomena, the complementary diversity of European social thought has been progressively homogenized into the structural functionalism as mainstream social theory that lost connection with intellectual contraditions of its European origins (Parsons 1937, 1951, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1977, 1978). As the empirical grasp of structural functionalism on the social reality it sought to describe slipped the voices of its critics raised in 1950s have led to its demise as leading theoretical paradigm in 1960s. To account for dynamic social change, links to diverse European traditions were reestablished by Munch (1991) with European sociology, by Coser (1956, 1967) and Dahrendorf (1958a, 1958b) with European conflict theory, by Homans (1961, 1974) with European neoclassical economics, by Blumer (1969) with German hermeneutics, by Garfinkel (1967) with German phenomenology, and by Gouldner (1971, 1980) and Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1984, 1989) with German political economy.
Save for Gouldner and Wallerstein, the institutionalization of plurality of microsociological models (Ritzer 1985) has replaced the Parsons' attempt to build a unified theoretical framework with multiple adapations of European thought to the empirical concerns of American sociology that without recourse to broad comparative approach offered few alternatives to complexity of structural functionalism (Munch 1991: 317). In all its variety of conflict theory (Collins 1975), rational choice theory (Coleman 1990), symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969; Strauss 1978), and ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967) American sociology spells out basic structures of the society it studies that is constituted of "the many activities of free, independent agents who realize their individual selves through competition, exchange, negotiation, and cooperation" (Munch 1991: 317). The globally dominant position of American sociology after World War II affects development of sociological theory around the world where its academic system exerts standardizng effect on European sociology (Munch 1986b) as the sociological peruiodicals of the United States impose through their editors and reviews the format and quality requirements upon their widely disseminated distribution network marked by uniform professionalizm not unlike other American franchizes (Ritzer 1983).
American system of sociological education in its dedication to professional standards has led to greatly narrowing the range of deviation from the average scholarly quality which is not the case in Europe where exceptional diversity of its sociological tradition has made it possible to produce works of much higher level of excellence (Munch 1991: 318). Correspondingly, as the economic paradigm is increasingly ascendant in American sociology (Coleman 1990) claiming to represent as definining direction of theoretical development as did structural functionalism (Parsons 1937) the major source of inspiration for the current economic turn is neoclassical economics exclusively built around rational choice theory, which excludes multiple other aspects of social phenomena that are not only no less important than but also excercise reciprocal impact on economic calculation (Munch 1992). Economic sociology, in common with conflict theory, social interactionism, and ethnomethodology, puts transactions between free individuals at the center of its construction of social reality the theoretical parsimony, empirical applicability, and basis in common sense of American economy of which have contributed to its dominant position in social theory, which puts at a disadvantage other directions of theoretical development should American sociology retain its centrality in the world (Munch 1991: 319).
As "the most exactly and precisely formulated theory" (Munch 1991: 319), the rational choice theory enjoys the brand-name success that exact reproducibility, wide applicability, and high quality ensure for it around the world with minimal instruction on its cultural, theoretical, or philosophical underpinnings finding instead its reflection in the global expansion of Westrern capitalism. However, the rational choice paradigm represents a reductive synthesis of other sociological theories that encompass the diverse aspects of social life that go far beyond the common denominator of economic perspective (Munch 1991: 320). Rebalancing of the relations that intellectual traditions of America, Europe and Southeast Asia have in the world creates necessity to cover wider range of social phenomena that European sociology with its diverse traditions continues to have major theoretical relevance for (Munch 1991: 320). Coming from a richly interdisciplinary tradition, European sociology encompasses different national traditions where multiple theoretical schools have coexisted that "based on their own philosophical principles and methodological rules" (Munch 1991: 320) neither put any single paradigm at the center of their sociological traditions nor professionalize themselves as a discipline.
A concerted effort is required to mobilize European theoretical traditions to achieve account of reality that would be sociologically comprehensive in its dealing with diversity of social phenomena. The more important contributions to social theory come from British, French, and German traditions (Munch 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1989). As British sociology displaced Spencer's (1897-1906] 1975) liberalism, utilitarianism, and evolutionism, after World War II it has developed its own school of Marxist class-conflict theory by scholars like Rex (1961, 1981), Lockwood (1958), Goldthorpe (1968, 1980), Miliband (1982), and Giddens (1984) not showing philosophical influence of Hegel as did German Marxism. In Britain Marxist sociologists act in alliance with established power structures to apply class-conflict theory to labor politics, extension of rigths and welfare services, and regulation of industrial production without giving mich weight to theory development (Munch 1991: 321). The British labor politics of compromise secures the existing class hierarchy by utilizing power of mobilization through organizations and unions to bring improvements in social conditions of working classes by emphasizing solidarity and community.
Workers' struggle in Britain takes place within the structure of solidarity among classes where "tutelage from above and deference from below" (Munch 1991: 322) ensured acceptance of existing class structure that has consequently inhibited technology-related productivity increases, individual achievement, and job requirements change. Thatcherist policy of curbing union power and appealing to individualism has weakened solidarity both within and among classes that while allowing change and innovation to promote economic development of British society has made necessary to restore inter-class consensus to the establishment of which the vibrancy of Marxist sociology in Britain has made important contribution. In contrast, French sociologists belong to flourishing intellectual elite with wide audience that appreciates their works within rapidly changing cycles of intellectual fashion (Munch 1991: 323). Works of Saint-Simon (1865-1878), Comte ([1830-1842] 1969), and Durkheim ([1893] 1973) exert a definitive impact on French sociology that envisions society as an organic whole governed from the top of its hierarchic organization where every class has specialized functions that in their sum promote the development of society, liberation of individual, and general well-being.
After World War II, the impetus to the development of French sociology given by structuralism (Levi-Strauss 1947, 1962) and Marxism (Althusser and Balibar [1968] 1970) that highlighted constitutive role of autonomous structures was carried over to poststructuralism (Foucault 1969, 1971, 1975), deconstructionism (Derrida 1967), and postmodernism (Lyotard 1979, 1983; Baudrillard 1986) that interpreted social domination in terms of relations between power and discourse, of mutual implication of social structures and texts, and of "plurality of aesthetic projects" (Munch 1991: 324). Beginning with Descartes ([1637] 1963), power in French thought is perceived abstractly so that access to its manifestation lies in textual structures that only intellectuals can contest as they struggle for the achievement of universal freedom that actionist sociology (Touraine 1973, 1978) explicitly pursues. French sociology of Crozier (1964a), Bourricaud (1976), Bourdieu (1979), and Boudon (1977) combines standardized empirical approach of American rational choice theories with emphasis on social structures, which continues positivistic tradition of Durkheim and Parsons. Not without precedent in Tocqueville ([1856] 1968), for the French sociologists the social structure is represented by positional power of individuals within bureaucracies (Crozier 1964a), capital cities (Bourricaud 1976), and economic, social, and cultural capital structures (Bourdieu 1979, 1984b, 1985) that serves the mobilization of "appropriate resources in the power struggle" (Munch 1991: 325).
Drawing upon the cumulative development of philosophy and social thought since the German Enlightenment of late 18th and early 19th century, German sociology operates under the conditions of academic authonomy where theories, concepts and ideas provide its exclusive environment that has made possible its "conceptual sharpness, theoretical consistency, and logical conclusiveness" (Munch 1991: 326). In contrast to the French sociology, academic consistency of German social theory lacks innovation and spontaneity which leads to its theoretical development by way of either reinterpretation of classical and contemporary works (Habermas 1984, 1986, 1988) or return to classical problems and solutions whenever radical break with tradition is attempted (Luhmann 1984, 1986, 1988). Impact of philosophical idealism on German social thought expresses itself in rendering modern society understandable via dynamics of dialectical contradictions that are located in culture and institutions. For Kant (1964) moral universalism and moral particularism tend to converge while never coinciding whereas for Hegel (1964-1971) the freedom of reason and necessity of reality can merge by gradual resolution of contradictions between them that in the ideal sense the state is the embodimetn of as its rulings are guided by philosophical thinkers acting under autonomous academic conditions that are in stark contrast to engaged proletariat that Marx ([1843] 1956, [1867] 1962, [1885] 1964) expected to perform homologous function as agents of historical change within capitalist economy.
With tragic consequences, Nazism and Stalinism represent totalitarian extremisms that German idealism could not contain within its synthetic logic as the Nazi state sought to exterminate social contradictions of capitalism while the Soviet state pursued eradication of economic contradictions of communism both of which led to total domination by party elite for the suffering that these two totalitarian regimes inflicted in the 20th century the German social theory carries responsibility for because of lending to them intellectual legitimation, however minor it should be (Munch 1991: 327). However, contradictions of modernity have nowhere found their as deep and as sharp elucidations as in works of such German social theorists as Simmel (1890, 1900, 1908, [1914] 1926) and Weber ([1920-1921a] 1972a, [1920-1921b] 1972b. [1920-1921c] 1971, [1922] 1972c) that have made unparalleled contribution to the sociology of institutions (Schluchter 1971, 1972) and are growing in theoretical importance (Schluchter 1979, 1988) even though after a long period of narrow political reception (Mommsen [1959] 1974; Hennis 1987). In German critical theory instrumental reason prevents Enlightenment-based modernity from realizing its claims for full realization of human potential (Horkheimer 1967; Horkheimer and Adorno 1947) that either objectification of conceptual thought (Adorno [1966] 1973a) or regulatory colonization of communicative life-worlds (Habermas 1971, 1973b, 1981) are held responsible for with aesthetic criticism and communicative rationality as respectively proposed remedies.
Though Habermas argues that discursive procedures should be institutionalized connective links among specialized social areas, only together with "procedures of negotiation, compromise, and conflict settlement" (Munch 1991: 329) can they contribute to managing the complexity of modern societies composed of autopoietic systems (Luhmann 1984, 1986, 1988) that should be approached as institutionalized functional areas that contingently interpenetrate each other to leave room for action (Munch 1991) and for critical reflection (Beck 1986, 1988; Willke 1983, 1989). To manintain the relevance of distinct contributions of European social thought to the discipline of sociology it is necessary to integrate its perspectives and its variety into American sociological theory. That, however, should be achieved not via the path of standardization of sociology towards its professionalized as a discipline but via the preservation of its interrelated diversity (Munch 1991: 329). Comparative advantage of American sociology in empirical research should be combined with strengths of European theoretical achievements in order to integrate distinct contributions of diverse national traditions to world sociology.
Though exchange, cooperation, and migration have always contributed to creating areas of overlap between these traditions as did wave of refugees from Nazi Germany in 1930s, movement of British Marxist and class conflict theorists like Moore (1966), Skocpol (1979), and Wallerstein (1974, 1980, 1984), and reception of European sociology by Alexander (1982-1983, 1987), the need for integration between American and European sociology remains. No less is necessary the mutual integration of European theoretical traditions that have more developed communication and exchange with American sociology than with each other, should their interrelated diversity exert long lasting theoretical influence (Munch 1991: 330).
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Analysis of Burawoy's (1998) Critical Sociology: A Dialogue Between Two Sciences
The discipline of sociology has, on one hand, a set of texts that have exercised guiding impact on the history of its development and, on the other hand, a number of practices that evolve in the process of their application, which constitutes the point of Stinchcombe's (1959) essay on Weber that Burawoy (1998) relates to contemporary state of sociology. Stinchcombe's distinction of mode of operation of ideal-typical bureaucracy into, on one side, properly bureaucratic work with detailed rules, division of labor, and set procedures, and, on another side, craft-like work with only cognitive map of theory to steer the interaction between researcher and informants equally applies to sociology (Burawoy 1998: 12). Bureaucratic sociology belongs to positive models of science with separation, distance, and detachment as its hallmarks, while craft sociology relies on reflexive models of science with connection, proximity and dialogue as its major features. As each theoretical practice responds to specific sets of characteristics of social reality, the distinction of sociology as a discipline lies, however, in avoiding predominance of any single approach in favor of "mutually enriching, reciprocal engagement of positive and reflexive science" (Burawoy 1998: 12).
The practice of science carries such implications for each model of scientific inquiry that context poses most challenge for the principles of positive science while power for reflexive science as these limits to scientific inquiry simultaneously demarcate the boundaries of the world each mode of science can make transparent. Beginning with Comte who opposed positivism with its search for empirical social laws to metaphysical thinking the transformation of sociology into science has been accompanied with qualification of its claims as the discipline underwent professionalization where representation of the world and scholarly practice are held to be separate. Positive science follows four basic regulatory principles (Katz 1983) that include avoidance of reactivity where researcher should refrain from inducing bias into studied reality, insurance of reliability whereby researcher systematically selects from available data, assurance of replicability where idiosyncrasies of observer are minimized, and demonstration of representativity where derivation or testing of theory must be valid for entire population of data. However, survey research as most representative of bureaucratic mode of science demonstrates its limitations of its guiding principles as stimulus-response expectation becomes affected by survey structure, location and subject, as standardization expectation meets with diversity of respondent understanding and reaction, as stabilization expectation gets subverted by external field effects on the interview, and as sampling expectation comes undone in situations of interaction that construct their subjects and situations rather than represent (Burawoy 1998: 13).
As the survey research progressively refines its methodology to control for context effects of interview by ethnographic sensibility, of respondent by focus groups, of field and situation by factoring in larger social forces the limitations of positive science and advantages of reflexive become more apparent (Burawoy 1998: 13). While objections to objectivist effects of social science frequently proclaim the "inviolability of local knowledge" (Burawoy 1998: 13), by Geertz (1983), Bauman (1992) and Latour (1993) among others, the interpretive turn towards research context from subjective standpoint should maintain communication with positivist social science to prevent another one-sided perspective from prevailing. Reflexive sociology, as proposed by Mills (1959), Gouldner (1970), and Bourdieu ad Wacquant (1992), invites methodological specification should transition towards "reflexive model of science" (Burawoy 1998: 14) be accomplished. Corresondingly, reflexive science presupposes intersubjectivity its subjects develop over course of research, embeddedness of its objects into context-specific social processes, structuration within assymetric relations between local contexts and extralocal processes, and reconstruction of theories by strategic choice of case studies to elaborate or revise conceptual frameworks (Burawoy 1998: 14).
Reflexive science allows for transition from procedural objectivity where empirical data either corroborate or falsify theories towards embedded objectivity where gradual improvement of theory overcomes epistemological dualisms of rigidly positivist orientation to find its foundation in intersubjective participation, process dependence, complex structuration, and theoretical reconstruction. Following Lakatos (1978) reconstructions should be consistent with existing knowledge, account for anomalous cases with parsimony, offer new theoretical perspective, lead to original predictive statements, and lend themselves to corroborations. The mutual dynamics found between anomalous empirical phenomena and theories or research programs that engenders theory reconstruction should supply the starting point for the production of new knowledge through discovery of anomalies and theoretical programs. This perspective opens an interdisciplinary space where each research program plies a reflexive, political and situational course in "hierarchically organized field of competing, overlapping, clashing, and mutually constituting theories" (Burawoy 1998: 14).
As a result of the theoretical historicization and de-exoticization of the anthropological encounter, rather than reconstruct fixed norms and isolated communities reflexive anthropology started to take account of strategic action by research subjects, of problematization by anthropologists of their research, and of direct observation of events by means of extended case method (Gluckman 1958, 1961; Mitchell 1956; van Velsen 1967). As ethnography becomes methodological tool increasingly widely used in sociology it incorporates theoretical concerns of extended case method into studies that cover street society (Bourgois 1995; Susser 1982), workplace (Lee 1997; Thomas 1985), migration (Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994; Stack 1996), family (Devault 1991; Stacey 1990), schooling (Lareau 1989; Willis 1977), social movements (Fantasia 1988; Ray 1998), underdevelopment (Enriquez 1991; Beneria and Roldan 1987), organizational dynamics (Blum 1991; Smith 1990), the state (Espeland 1998; Haney 1996), and science (Epstein 1996; Fujimura 1996). As applications of ethnography continue to develop along the dimensions of intersubjective experience, comparative tracing of processes across contexts, historical interpretation of translocal structures, and cumulative theory reconstruction such methodology has to grapple with subversive effects of "multiple dimensions of power" (Burawoy 1998: 15).
Ethnographic research tends to come into contact with networks of domination that restrictively affect the possibilities for communication and discovery the attempts at intervening into which contribute to dynamics of domination already found in the research field where contestatory intention of research needs to address relations of power in their fullness. The analysis of social process cannot be rid of the objectifying effects whereby sociological reduction commits silencing by reconstructing relations of power, production of differences, and reproduction of complex field centered around actors privileged by ethnographer's account. The differences in historical, social, and theoretical scale that enter into ethnographic research of connection between micro processes and large-scale social forces lead to their contingent objectification in order to highlight their social reality as is done in institutional ethnography (Smith 1987, 1990). Ethnography sensitive to anomalous subjects of its discourse in the process of extending the reach of reconstructed theories should refrain from normalizing social reality through naturalization of existing relations, homogenization of differences, domestication of resistances, and stigmatization of traditions.
While researcher's authority in both positive and reflexive science is exercised through dimensions of "domination, silencing, objectification, and normalization" (Burawoy 1998: 16), the medium of application of authority is the control over research design in positive science and the power over context of research in reflexive science. The contradictions that science harbors in its principles and operation demand its reshaping and reappropriation with critique contributing to continuous self-monitoring of scientific practice, which, as opposed to postmodernist renunciation, does not lead to standing "helpless before the ravages of modernity" (Burawoy 1998: 16). As both positive and reflexive science discover their respective limitations the use of techniques, methods, and models becomes differentiated according to the model of science they serve. In case of interview, it can be employed either as objectifying tool of survey research of positive science or as part of reflexive method where it is "self-consciously intersubjective, highlights process through space and time, and locates the individual in historical and social milieus" (Burawoy 1998: 16). Correspondingly, participant observation can be used reflexively as part of application of extended case method or be put to positive use of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) with outside observation, coding apparatuses, context bracketing, and theory induction.
The difference between application of ethnography in positive as opposed to reflexive science lies in whether inductive derivation of conclusions (Hochschild 1989) or critical engagement of discursive practices (Devault 1991) is sought. In historical sociology the distinction between positive and reflexive principles takes form of, on one hand, outer-historical standpoint, formal standardization, simultaneous comparison of historical contexts, and theoretical induction of explanatory factors (Skocpol 1979), and of, on the other hand, participatory reconstruction of history, orientation to singular processes over homogeneous events, changing context of interactions, and theory reconstruction vis-a-vis single case (Trotsky [1906] 1969, [1930] 1977). Being among the methods that has explored the methodological space between positive and reflexive science, feminist ethnography has not developed into systematic research, has refused to develop totalizing theories of class, race, and ethnicity, has not yet related everyday life to translocal forces, and has not translated deconstructions of theory or ideology into research programs (Burawoy 1998: 17).
Among the contributions to the reflexive science of sociology that allows to locate the discipline in the changing conditions of its existence is Castells' (1996, 1997, 1998) sociology of the post-industrial order where disparities and concentration of power, transnationalization of corporations, and development of global networks reach unprecedented scale. Proliferation of possibilities, spatial flows, and risks puts sociology together with other practices of knowledge production at the center of increasingly self-referential social order. Giddens (1992) and Beck (1992) highlight the need for reflexive science to respond to paradoxical consequences of unfolding of advanced modernization that call science to internal self-regulation, social accountability, context sensitivity, and consequences and fallibility awareness. The disciplinary reflexivity deficit of sociology has to be met with recognition of interdependence of positive and reflexive methods that can be arrived at "by holding them in tension, by interweaving them, by playing them off each other" (Burawoy 1998: 18).
How effective research methods prove to be also depends on methodological scale of phenomena studied so that translocal social forces receive reflection in survey and demographic data that is unavailable through ethnography. When different research methods are combined, their criteria of evaluation should not be merged or confused. Implication of methodologies in either positive or reflexive science also governs the choice and formulation of problems which makes interdisciplinary combination of methods conditional on corresponding change in methodological orientations. Similar to how rise of mass society brought prominence to survey research (Coleman 1986), reflexive sociology belongs to the present historical moment when apparatuses of global control proliferate in developing countries, local rebellions against the global, and postcolonial challenging of marginalization. Changes afoot in outside world also constitute the theoretical practice of sociology as symbolic analysis (Reich 1991) fits better into horizontal than hierarchical networks, action research (Touraine 1988) reinforces the dynamics of new social movements, and extended case method becomes "increasingly tied to the polarized world we study" (Burawoy 1998: 19).
Integration of structural functionalism of Parsons (1949, 1960) into present practice of largely reflexive sociology will provide it with ability to methodologically mediate between more positive economics and political science and more interpretive anthropology, history, and geography, to deal with ethnography, silencing, globalization, modernity, and theory non-dualistically, and to provide reflexive social critique sensitive to both context and power relations. However, in order to avoid imbalance between reflexive and positivist methodologies within sociology it has to articulate counterhegemonic theoretical frameworks, to force research methodologies to confront their limitations, to reconnect sociology to interdisciplinary developments, and to "respond creatively and critically to the troubles and (dis)illusions of the epoch" (Burawoy 1988: 19).
The practice of science carries such implications for each model of scientific inquiry that context poses most challenge for the principles of positive science while power for reflexive science as these limits to scientific inquiry simultaneously demarcate the boundaries of the world each mode of science can make transparent. Beginning with Comte who opposed positivism with its search for empirical social laws to metaphysical thinking the transformation of sociology into science has been accompanied with qualification of its claims as the discipline underwent professionalization where representation of the world and scholarly practice are held to be separate. Positive science follows four basic regulatory principles (Katz 1983) that include avoidance of reactivity where researcher should refrain from inducing bias into studied reality, insurance of reliability whereby researcher systematically selects from available data, assurance of replicability where idiosyncrasies of observer are minimized, and demonstration of representativity where derivation or testing of theory must be valid for entire population of data. However, survey research as most representative of bureaucratic mode of science demonstrates its limitations of its guiding principles as stimulus-response expectation becomes affected by survey structure, location and subject, as standardization expectation meets with diversity of respondent understanding and reaction, as stabilization expectation gets subverted by external field effects on the interview, and as sampling expectation comes undone in situations of interaction that construct their subjects and situations rather than represent (Burawoy 1998: 13).
As the survey research progressively refines its methodology to control for context effects of interview by ethnographic sensibility, of respondent by focus groups, of field and situation by factoring in larger social forces the limitations of positive science and advantages of reflexive become more apparent (Burawoy 1998: 13). While objections to objectivist effects of social science frequently proclaim the "inviolability of local knowledge" (Burawoy 1998: 13), by Geertz (1983), Bauman (1992) and Latour (1993) among others, the interpretive turn towards research context from subjective standpoint should maintain communication with positivist social science to prevent another one-sided perspective from prevailing. Reflexive sociology, as proposed by Mills (1959), Gouldner (1970), and Bourdieu ad Wacquant (1992), invites methodological specification should transition towards "reflexive model of science" (Burawoy 1998: 14) be accomplished. Corresondingly, reflexive science presupposes intersubjectivity its subjects develop over course of research, embeddedness of its objects into context-specific social processes, structuration within assymetric relations between local contexts and extralocal processes, and reconstruction of theories by strategic choice of case studies to elaborate or revise conceptual frameworks (Burawoy 1998: 14).
Reflexive science allows for transition from procedural objectivity where empirical data either corroborate or falsify theories towards embedded objectivity where gradual improvement of theory overcomes epistemological dualisms of rigidly positivist orientation to find its foundation in intersubjective participation, process dependence, complex structuration, and theoretical reconstruction. Following Lakatos (1978) reconstructions should be consistent with existing knowledge, account for anomalous cases with parsimony, offer new theoretical perspective, lead to original predictive statements, and lend themselves to corroborations. The mutual dynamics found between anomalous empirical phenomena and theories or research programs that engenders theory reconstruction should supply the starting point for the production of new knowledge through discovery of anomalies and theoretical programs. This perspective opens an interdisciplinary space where each research program plies a reflexive, political and situational course in "hierarchically organized field of competing, overlapping, clashing, and mutually constituting theories" (Burawoy 1998: 14).
As a result of the theoretical historicization and de-exoticization of the anthropological encounter, rather than reconstruct fixed norms and isolated communities reflexive anthropology started to take account of strategic action by research subjects, of problematization by anthropologists of their research, and of direct observation of events by means of extended case method (Gluckman 1958, 1961; Mitchell 1956; van Velsen 1967). As ethnography becomes methodological tool increasingly widely used in sociology it incorporates theoretical concerns of extended case method into studies that cover street society (Bourgois 1995; Susser 1982), workplace (Lee 1997; Thomas 1985), migration (Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994; Stack 1996), family (Devault 1991; Stacey 1990), schooling (Lareau 1989; Willis 1977), social movements (Fantasia 1988; Ray 1998), underdevelopment (Enriquez 1991; Beneria and Roldan 1987), organizational dynamics (Blum 1991; Smith 1990), the state (Espeland 1998; Haney 1996), and science (Epstein 1996; Fujimura 1996). As applications of ethnography continue to develop along the dimensions of intersubjective experience, comparative tracing of processes across contexts, historical interpretation of translocal structures, and cumulative theory reconstruction such methodology has to grapple with subversive effects of "multiple dimensions of power" (Burawoy 1998: 15).
Ethnographic research tends to come into contact with networks of domination that restrictively affect the possibilities for communication and discovery the attempts at intervening into which contribute to dynamics of domination already found in the research field where contestatory intention of research needs to address relations of power in their fullness. The analysis of social process cannot be rid of the objectifying effects whereby sociological reduction commits silencing by reconstructing relations of power, production of differences, and reproduction of complex field centered around actors privileged by ethnographer's account. The differences in historical, social, and theoretical scale that enter into ethnographic research of connection between micro processes and large-scale social forces lead to their contingent objectification in order to highlight their social reality as is done in institutional ethnography (Smith 1987, 1990). Ethnography sensitive to anomalous subjects of its discourse in the process of extending the reach of reconstructed theories should refrain from normalizing social reality through naturalization of existing relations, homogenization of differences, domestication of resistances, and stigmatization of traditions.
While researcher's authority in both positive and reflexive science is exercised through dimensions of "domination, silencing, objectification, and normalization" (Burawoy 1998: 16), the medium of application of authority is the control over research design in positive science and the power over context of research in reflexive science. The contradictions that science harbors in its principles and operation demand its reshaping and reappropriation with critique contributing to continuous self-monitoring of scientific practice, which, as opposed to postmodernist renunciation, does not lead to standing "helpless before the ravages of modernity" (Burawoy 1998: 16). As both positive and reflexive science discover their respective limitations the use of techniques, methods, and models becomes differentiated according to the model of science they serve. In case of interview, it can be employed either as objectifying tool of survey research of positive science or as part of reflexive method where it is "self-consciously intersubjective, highlights process through space and time, and locates the individual in historical and social milieus" (Burawoy 1998: 16). Correspondingly, participant observation can be used reflexively as part of application of extended case method or be put to positive use of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) with outside observation, coding apparatuses, context bracketing, and theory induction.
The difference between application of ethnography in positive as opposed to reflexive science lies in whether inductive derivation of conclusions (Hochschild 1989) or critical engagement of discursive practices (Devault 1991) is sought. In historical sociology the distinction between positive and reflexive principles takes form of, on one hand, outer-historical standpoint, formal standardization, simultaneous comparison of historical contexts, and theoretical induction of explanatory factors (Skocpol 1979), and of, on the other hand, participatory reconstruction of history, orientation to singular processes over homogeneous events, changing context of interactions, and theory reconstruction vis-a-vis single case (Trotsky [1906] 1969, [1930] 1977). Being among the methods that has explored the methodological space between positive and reflexive science, feminist ethnography has not developed into systematic research, has refused to develop totalizing theories of class, race, and ethnicity, has not yet related everyday life to translocal forces, and has not translated deconstructions of theory or ideology into research programs (Burawoy 1998: 17).
Among the contributions to the reflexive science of sociology that allows to locate the discipline in the changing conditions of its existence is Castells' (1996, 1997, 1998) sociology of the post-industrial order where disparities and concentration of power, transnationalization of corporations, and development of global networks reach unprecedented scale. Proliferation of possibilities, spatial flows, and risks puts sociology together with other practices of knowledge production at the center of increasingly self-referential social order. Giddens (1992) and Beck (1992) highlight the need for reflexive science to respond to paradoxical consequences of unfolding of advanced modernization that call science to internal self-regulation, social accountability, context sensitivity, and consequences and fallibility awareness. The disciplinary reflexivity deficit of sociology has to be met with recognition of interdependence of positive and reflexive methods that can be arrived at "by holding them in tension, by interweaving them, by playing them off each other" (Burawoy 1998: 18).
How effective research methods prove to be also depends on methodological scale of phenomena studied so that translocal social forces receive reflection in survey and demographic data that is unavailable through ethnography. When different research methods are combined, their criteria of evaluation should not be merged or confused. Implication of methodologies in either positive or reflexive science also governs the choice and formulation of problems which makes interdisciplinary combination of methods conditional on corresponding change in methodological orientations. Similar to how rise of mass society brought prominence to survey research (Coleman 1986), reflexive sociology belongs to the present historical moment when apparatuses of global control proliferate in developing countries, local rebellions against the global, and postcolonial challenging of marginalization. Changes afoot in outside world also constitute the theoretical practice of sociology as symbolic analysis (Reich 1991) fits better into horizontal than hierarchical networks, action research (Touraine 1988) reinforces the dynamics of new social movements, and extended case method becomes "increasingly tied to the polarized world we study" (Burawoy 1998: 19).
Integration of structural functionalism of Parsons (1949, 1960) into present practice of largely reflexive sociology will provide it with ability to methodologically mediate between more positive economics and political science and more interpretive anthropology, history, and geography, to deal with ethnography, silencing, globalization, modernity, and theory non-dualistically, and to provide reflexive social critique sensitive to both context and power relations. However, in order to avoid imbalance between reflexive and positivist methodologies within sociology it has to articulate counterhegemonic theoretical frameworks, to force research methodologies to confront their limitations, to reconnect sociology to interdisciplinary developments, and to "respond creatively and critically to the troubles and (dis)illusions of the epoch" (Burawoy 1988: 19).
Analysis of Walby's (2007) On the Social Relations of Research
While institutional ethnography takes critical position vis-a-vis traditional sociology and investigates relations occurring between local action and extra-local relations, the binary oppositions that govern its discourse call for its reflexive reformulation within the larger field of sociological theorization. As Smith asserts the inevitability with which institutional ethnographers are drawn into the ruling relations through their professional agency (2005: 206), forging conceptual linkages between theoretical discussions in sociology is as much incumbent on it as is awareness of its effects on relations of ruling in contexts of its application. In formulating institutional ethnography Smith draws on feminism (Smith 1987; 1990a; 1990b; 1992), Marxism (Smith 1977; 2004), and sociology of knowledge (Smith 1984; 1990c; 1999; 2001) in order to propose an alternative sociology (Smith 2005) that turns the knowing subject into an "entry point into the social" (Walby 2007: 1009) transcending traditional forms of objectification.
Smith's approach (2005) converges upon place that texts occupy in organizing inter-individual relations across contexts where "sequences of action coordinated in extra-local sites" (Walby 2007: 1009) enable distanciation of social relations (Smith 1987). Even though institutional ethnography intends to uncover the implication of textual mediation of relations in modes of ruling (Smith 1990b), the disciplinary distance that it claims for itself apart from the rest of the ethnographic practices is not tenable for reason that it shares with the social sciences their methodological tools (Mauthner and Doucet 2003). Institutional ethnography fully belongs to the discussion on the place of social relations in the research practice that has already been widely covered in relation to ethnographic methodology across the width of its application (Burawoy et al. 2000; Denzin 1999, 2002; Hammersley 1990; Hammersley and Atkinson 1983; Lofland and Lofland 1995; Williams 1993). In so far as institutional ethnography aims to reduce the degree to which objectification takes place in the process of research the remedy to the objectivist research practices lies in reflexive intervention in how ethnographic methodology is configured (Walby 2007: 1010).
As the intention of institutional ethnography is to seek access to extralocal organization of forms of knowledge via methodological attention to individuals (Campbell 1998), as opposted to ethnomethodology, it goes beyond the individual towards the social (de Montigny 1995: 14; DeVault 1991) and its draws attention to the locally specific organization of the setting of ethnographic research (Smith 1990b: 118). Beginning with critique of Schutz's phenomenology as a form of gendered symbolic violence (Smith 1987: 83), Smith (1977; 1990c) borrowed form Marx's method to ground her alternative sociology in in the site of people's experience, as she proceeded to investigate subjects that objectified knowledges make invisible (Smith 1987; 2005). For Smith ruling relations arise from the processes whereby governmental discourses subsume forms of knowledge originating in lived and intuitive experience of individuals (Smith 1990: 31). From the initial position of institutional ethnography on active production of social meanings by texts (Smith 1990b: 216), subsequent research reveals that texts act as "processing interchanges" (Pence 2001; Walby 2005a; 2006) in the subjective constitution of social relations where people perform interpretive work in the settings of reading (Turner 2002: 309).
From the methodological standpoint, institutional ethnography investigates how texts achieve institutional organization (Smith 2005: 181) the process of which remains constitutively open to further explication of "institutional nexuses" (Grahame 1999) and to additional problematics to which each context leads (DeVault 1999: 50). Common methodological focus on institutional ethnography turns its practitioners into participants in collective work (Smith 2005: 219) as their activities all concentrate on institutional interconnections at interview sites (DeVault and McCoy 2002: 758), multiple contexts that texts cross (Walby 2005b: 165), and rigorous explication of ruling relations (DeVault and McCoy 2002: 764). While institutional ethnography has been categorized as a philosophy of the subject (Reinharz 1992) and an individuated approach (Connell 1992), its declared aim is to produce explanatory maps of dynamic relations (Smith 1999: 129; Campbell and Gregor 2002). Despite claims to the contrary (Smith 2005: 35, 49; DeVault 1999: 66), institutional ethnography actively involves theoretical frameworks in the production of its results, shares methodological concerns with other sociological theories, and constitutes its subjects and data interpretations in the process of its research practices (Walby 2007: 1013-1014).
To designate alienation obtaining between ethnographer and informants obtaining in the process of fieldwork a designation of "social relations of research" (Oliver 1992: 102) has been proposed. However, the calls for changing social relations of research with the aim of advancing emancipatory goals do not take into account the place of ethnographic fieldwork within the larger process of knowledge production which implicates the practice of ethnography in definitions of discursive authority in science. Even though the spread of the social constructivist approach in social sciences has been widely associated with reflexive turn as a means to rectify positivist obscuring of role of researcher's subjectivity and of implicit procedural principles (Haggerty 2003: 155-156), the implications of the reflexive turn remain to be translated into reorganization of research practice. Seen as an "intervention into research practice across paradigms" (Walby 2007: 1015), reflexivity intervenes to reduce such negative effects of objectifying effects of research as truncation, ill confluence, and misrepresentation (Wilby 2003: 1015). Taken to its conceptual limits, reflexivity becomes instrumentalized for purposes of valorization of critical research (Lynch 2000), loses connection with methodological foundations of research (Macbeth 2001), and leads to unending fetishization of the research practice (Davies et al. 2004).
As researchers strive to arrive at economical explanations of reality (Law 2004), selection of relevant elements of social reality during research practice necessarily involves truncation of other components (Law and Singleton 2005) that reflexive attention to ontological and epistemological assumptions can bring to bear on ethnographic practice. Reflexivity is primarily helpful for "reconfiguring social relations of research" (Walby 2007: 1016) that through "epistemological accountability" (Mauthner and Doucet 2003: 424) can contribute to critical examination of textual practices of research and to interrogation of practices that establish authority within the relations of knowing. While institutional ethnography fails to offer methodologically viable alternatives to what it terms as monological theoretical frameworks (Smith 1990c), its focus on standpoint, institutions, and texts (Smith 2005: 52) puts it within the conceptual horizon of classical sociology (Sorokin 1956) as its theoretical stress on discovery necessitates interventions in the "research design itself" (Walby 2007: 1017) rather than in its ethical dimensions (Guillemin and Gillam 2004).
Given that sociological findings are irredeemably provisional (Vahabzadeh 2005), the process of rendering real intelligible in terms of research ontology involves truncation of its aspects (Law 2004) that reflexive attention to theoretical and methodological foundations of research practice can make transparent. Reliance on overly schematic theoretical models of social reality demands correction of "limitations that define substantive theories" (Katz 2002: 260) which finds correspondence in Smith's positing of the "subject-centered ontology of the social" (Walby 2007: 1018). Awareness of the constitutive role of ontological status of research categories makes possible reflexive intervention in the social relation of research at its decisive stages. In common with action network theory (Callon 1986; Latour 1987; Saldanha 2003), institutional ethnography concerns itself with social organization of knowledge that, however, differs from decentering of subjects in favor of "networks of sociotechnical performance" (Law 1999: 10) that submerges articulation of subject-object nexus (Smith 1990b) in the organization of the network (Latour 2000). The social relations of research are inescapably part of ethnographic fieldwork that can only ameliorate its objectifying effect by keeping the discussion of its theoretical underpinnings open (Vahabzadeh 2003) and by reflexively intervening into practical considerations that inform research practice (Law 2004).
As opposed to one-sided methodological emphasis on researcher subjectivity in the interview setting, the research interview has been recovered as a site where identities are contructed (Presser 2004), a process whereby identities are negotiated and solidified (Arendell 1997; Best 2003), a relationship where researchers and informants mutually exercise power (Thapar-Bjorkert and Henry 2004), and a space where material objects influence the interchange through their presence (De Leon and Cohen 2005). In institutional ethnography interviewing allows to "tap into people's expertise" (Campbell 1998: 57) that in the process of translation into research results becomes integrated into intersecting experiential dialogues (Smith 2005: 135-139). Within the social relations of research, interviewing corresponds to the aspect of research design that renders the statements of research participants "intelligible within one's orientation toward the world" (Walby 2007: 1020). While Goffman (1974) employs the concept of frame to describe governing structures behind everyday communication, in its attempt to displace the dominant frame of organization of knowledge (Smith 1987) institutional ethnography has developed towards sharing theoretical preoccupations of the sociological discourse its orientation to individual experience notwithstanding (Smith 2005: 139).
Interpretive practices arising during fieldwork directed to achievement of institutional ethnography aims (DeVault 1999: 66) are "always governed by the frame of institutional ethnographic discourse" (Wilby 2007: 1021). Though interview situations are fraught with possibilities of ill confluence when well-being of informants can be at stake or when researcher's frame of reference regulates articulation of the interview (Wilby 2007: 1021), they play crucial role in "method assemblage" (Law 2004: 84) that constructs a bundle of theoretical relations around research subjects and objects the practice of which institutional ethnography implicitly shares. The proposed reflexivity of institutional ethnography towards implicit accounts of social organization and ruling relations (Smith 2005: 143) does not provide methodological safeguards against self-referential reinforcement that researcher's frame of theoretical reference can impose on research results. Excessive reliance on everyday communication as experiential source of rooting authority in subjective knowledge that institutional ethnography evinces encloses it in the circle of interpretive problems that philosophical hermeneutics recognizes as pertaining to communicative practices (Gadamer 2003).
The transition to technologies of interview recording that enable production of exact interview transcripts has affected the distribution of authority within social relations of research (Lee 2004), revealed the relative paucity of application of data analysis methods in ethnographic practice (Mauthner and Doucet 1997), and shifted the focus of institutional ethnographic work towards secondary dialogue with the documentary record (Smith 2005). The process of editing (DeVault 1999: 73), explicating (DeVault 1999: 71), and integrating (Smith 2005: 143) the interview transcripts into explicative research accounts does not address in its methodology the possibilities of misinterpretation inherent in the institutional ethnography assumptions of the place of experience in knowledge organization (Smith 2005: 135). Due to the constitutive role that theory plays in qualitative data analysis (Honan, Knobel, Baker and Davies 2000), institutional ethnography has to dedicate effort to elaboration of its theoretical framework since it mediates the access of research practice to reality that it purports to discover (Walby 2007: 1024).
That institutional ethnography produces rather than discovers its research findings is accounted for by enactment of theories that researcher employ in their work (Lapadat and Lindsay 1999) and by encompassing role of analysis in data collection, assembly and representation (Weston et al. 2001). As a means for encouraging researchers to take responsibility for their authoritative role in the production of research materials a practice of interview narrative composition can be used that openly involves informants in iterative, reflexive, and participative writing of their accounts that are not unlike products of ghostwriting (Rhodes 2000). However, only bringing to bear of fully developed theoretical framework on research practice will put limitations on the authority of the institutional ethnographer (Walby 2007: 1025). To avoid infliction of symbolic violence on research subjects (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 167), institutional ethnography should seek reflexive intervention into its processes of construction of social reality (Walby 2007: 1025) that remain methodologically inaccessible as long as comprehensive connections to theoretical discussions in sociology fail to be forged.
While the initial impetus for the development of institutional ethnography has come from the postmodern and poststructural bodies of theory (Smith 1999), a necessity remains to go beyond the project of critical sociology towards integration into the tradition of sociological discourse albeit from a reflexive standpoint. The way out of methodological impasse that concentration on "emancipation-regulation dichotomy" (Walby 2007: 1026) of institutional ethnography leads to lies in shifting the attention to the theoretical roots of its research practice rather than in ascription to its methods liberatory effects (DeVault 1999). In order to fulfill its mandate of creating new possibilities for sociological practice (Hammersley 2004; Smith 2005; Vahabzadeh 2003) institutional ethnography should open itself to developments that take place elsewhere in sociological discourse (Law and Urry 2004) in terms that build upon history of theoretical, methodological, and interdisciplinary reflection in sociology.
Smith's approach (2005) converges upon place that texts occupy in organizing inter-individual relations across contexts where "sequences of action coordinated in extra-local sites" (Walby 2007: 1009) enable distanciation of social relations (Smith 1987). Even though institutional ethnography intends to uncover the implication of textual mediation of relations in modes of ruling (Smith 1990b), the disciplinary distance that it claims for itself apart from the rest of the ethnographic practices is not tenable for reason that it shares with the social sciences their methodological tools (Mauthner and Doucet 2003). Institutional ethnography fully belongs to the discussion on the place of social relations in the research practice that has already been widely covered in relation to ethnographic methodology across the width of its application (Burawoy et al. 2000; Denzin 1999, 2002; Hammersley 1990; Hammersley and Atkinson 1983; Lofland and Lofland 1995; Williams 1993). In so far as institutional ethnography aims to reduce the degree to which objectification takes place in the process of research the remedy to the objectivist research practices lies in reflexive intervention in how ethnographic methodology is configured (Walby 2007: 1010).
As the intention of institutional ethnography is to seek access to extralocal organization of forms of knowledge via methodological attention to individuals (Campbell 1998), as opposted to ethnomethodology, it goes beyond the individual towards the social (de Montigny 1995: 14; DeVault 1991) and its draws attention to the locally specific organization of the setting of ethnographic research (Smith 1990b: 118). Beginning with critique of Schutz's phenomenology as a form of gendered symbolic violence (Smith 1987: 83), Smith (1977; 1990c) borrowed form Marx's method to ground her alternative sociology in in the site of people's experience, as she proceeded to investigate subjects that objectified knowledges make invisible (Smith 1987; 2005). For Smith ruling relations arise from the processes whereby governmental discourses subsume forms of knowledge originating in lived and intuitive experience of individuals (Smith 1990: 31). From the initial position of institutional ethnography on active production of social meanings by texts (Smith 1990b: 216), subsequent research reveals that texts act as "processing interchanges" (Pence 2001; Walby 2005a; 2006) in the subjective constitution of social relations where people perform interpretive work in the settings of reading (Turner 2002: 309).
From the methodological standpoint, institutional ethnography investigates how texts achieve institutional organization (Smith 2005: 181) the process of which remains constitutively open to further explication of "institutional nexuses" (Grahame 1999) and to additional problematics to which each context leads (DeVault 1999: 50). Common methodological focus on institutional ethnography turns its practitioners into participants in collective work (Smith 2005: 219) as their activities all concentrate on institutional interconnections at interview sites (DeVault and McCoy 2002: 758), multiple contexts that texts cross (Walby 2005b: 165), and rigorous explication of ruling relations (DeVault and McCoy 2002: 764). While institutional ethnography has been categorized as a philosophy of the subject (Reinharz 1992) and an individuated approach (Connell 1992), its declared aim is to produce explanatory maps of dynamic relations (Smith 1999: 129; Campbell and Gregor 2002). Despite claims to the contrary (Smith 2005: 35, 49; DeVault 1999: 66), institutional ethnography actively involves theoretical frameworks in the production of its results, shares methodological concerns with other sociological theories, and constitutes its subjects and data interpretations in the process of its research practices (Walby 2007: 1013-1014).
To designate alienation obtaining between ethnographer and informants obtaining in the process of fieldwork a designation of "social relations of research" (Oliver 1992: 102) has been proposed. However, the calls for changing social relations of research with the aim of advancing emancipatory goals do not take into account the place of ethnographic fieldwork within the larger process of knowledge production which implicates the practice of ethnography in definitions of discursive authority in science. Even though the spread of the social constructivist approach in social sciences has been widely associated with reflexive turn as a means to rectify positivist obscuring of role of researcher's subjectivity and of implicit procedural principles (Haggerty 2003: 155-156), the implications of the reflexive turn remain to be translated into reorganization of research practice. Seen as an "intervention into research practice across paradigms" (Walby 2007: 1015), reflexivity intervenes to reduce such negative effects of objectifying effects of research as truncation, ill confluence, and misrepresentation (Wilby 2003: 1015). Taken to its conceptual limits, reflexivity becomes instrumentalized for purposes of valorization of critical research (Lynch 2000), loses connection with methodological foundations of research (Macbeth 2001), and leads to unending fetishization of the research practice (Davies et al. 2004).
As researchers strive to arrive at economical explanations of reality (Law 2004), selection of relevant elements of social reality during research practice necessarily involves truncation of other components (Law and Singleton 2005) that reflexive attention to ontological and epistemological assumptions can bring to bear on ethnographic practice. Reflexivity is primarily helpful for "reconfiguring social relations of research" (Walby 2007: 1016) that through "epistemological accountability" (Mauthner and Doucet 2003: 424) can contribute to critical examination of textual practices of research and to interrogation of practices that establish authority within the relations of knowing. While institutional ethnography fails to offer methodologically viable alternatives to what it terms as monological theoretical frameworks (Smith 1990c), its focus on standpoint, institutions, and texts (Smith 2005: 52) puts it within the conceptual horizon of classical sociology (Sorokin 1956) as its theoretical stress on discovery necessitates interventions in the "research design itself" (Walby 2007: 1017) rather than in its ethical dimensions (Guillemin and Gillam 2004).
Given that sociological findings are irredeemably provisional (Vahabzadeh 2005), the process of rendering real intelligible in terms of research ontology involves truncation of its aspects (Law 2004) that reflexive attention to theoretical and methodological foundations of research practice can make transparent. Reliance on overly schematic theoretical models of social reality demands correction of "limitations that define substantive theories" (Katz 2002: 260) which finds correspondence in Smith's positing of the "subject-centered ontology of the social" (Walby 2007: 1018). Awareness of the constitutive role of ontological status of research categories makes possible reflexive intervention in the social relation of research at its decisive stages. In common with action network theory (Callon 1986; Latour 1987; Saldanha 2003), institutional ethnography concerns itself with social organization of knowledge that, however, differs from decentering of subjects in favor of "networks of sociotechnical performance" (Law 1999: 10) that submerges articulation of subject-object nexus (Smith 1990b) in the organization of the network (Latour 2000). The social relations of research are inescapably part of ethnographic fieldwork that can only ameliorate its objectifying effect by keeping the discussion of its theoretical underpinnings open (Vahabzadeh 2003) and by reflexively intervening into practical considerations that inform research practice (Law 2004).
As opposed to one-sided methodological emphasis on researcher subjectivity in the interview setting, the research interview has been recovered as a site where identities are contructed (Presser 2004), a process whereby identities are negotiated and solidified (Arendell 1997; Best 2003), a relationship where researchers and informants mutually exercise power (Thapar-Bjorkert and Henry 2004), and a space where material objects influence the interchange through their presence (De Leon and Cohen 2005). In institutional ethnography interviewing allows to "tap into people's expertise" (Campbell 1998: 57) that in the process of translation into research results becomes integrated into intersecting experiential dialogues (Smith 2005: 135-139). Within the social relations of research, interviewing corresponds to the aspect of research design that renders the statements of research participants "intelligible within one's orientation toward the world" (Walby 2007: 1020). While Goffman (1974) employs the concept of frame to describe governing structures behind everyday communication, in its attempt to displace the dominant frame of organization of knowledge (Smith 1987) institutional ethnography has developed towards sharing theoretical preoccupations of the sociological discourse its orientation to individual experience notwithstanding (Smith 2005: 139).
Interpretive practices arising during fieldwork directed to achievement of institutional ethnography aims (DeVault 1999: 66) are "always governed by the frame of institutional ethnographic discourse" (Wilby 2007: 1021). Though interview situations are fraught with possibilities of ill confluence when well-being of informants can be at stake or when researcher's frame of reference regulates articulation of the interview (Wilby 2007: 1021), they play crucial role in "method assemblage" (Law 2004: 84) that constructs a bundle of theoretical relations around research subjects and objects the practice of which institutional ethnography implicitly shares. The proposed reflexivity of institutional ethnography towards implicit accounts of social organization and ruling relations (Smith 2005: 143) does not provide methodological safeguards against self-referential reinforcement that researcher's frame of theoretical reference can impose on research results. Excessive reliance on everyday communication as experiential source of rooting authority in subjective knowledge that institutional ethnography evinces encloses it in the circle of interpretive problems that philosophical hermeneutics recognizes as pertaining to communicative practices (Gadamer 2003).
The transition to technologies of interview recording that enable production of exact interview transcripts has affected the distribution of authority within social relations of research (Lee 2004), revealed the relative paucity of application of data analysis methods in ethnographic practice (Mauthner and Doucet 1997), and shifted the focus of institutional ethnographic work towards secondary dialogue with the documentary record (Smith 2005). The process of editing (DeVault 1999: 73), explicating (DeVault 1999: 71), and integrating (Smith 2005: 143) the interview transcripts into explicative research accounts does not address in its methodology the possibilities of misinterpretation inherent in the institutional ethnography assumptions of the place of experience in knowledge organization (Smith 2005: 135). Due to the constitutive role that theory plays in qualitative data analysis (Honan, Knobel, Baker and Davies 2000), institutional ethnography has to dedicate effort to elaboration of its theoretical framework since it mediates the access of research practice to reality that it purports to discover (Walby 2007: 1024).
That institutional ethnography produces rather than discovers its research findings is accounted for by enactment of theories that researcher employ in their work (Lapadat and Lindsay 1999) and by encompassing role of analysis in data collection, assembly and representation (Weston et al. 2001). As a means for encouraging researchers to take responsibility for their authoritative role in the production of research materials a practice of interview narrative composition can be used that openly involves informants in iterative, reflexive, and participative writing of their accounts that are not unlike products of ghostwriting (Rhodes 2000). However, only bringing to bear of fully developed theoretical framework on research practice will put limitations on the authority of the institutional ethnographer (Walby 2007: 1025). To avoid infliction of symbolic violence on research subjects (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 167), institutional ethnography should seek reflexive intervention into its processes of construction of social reality (Walby 2007: 1025) that remain methodologically inaccessible as long as comprehensive connections to theoretical discussions in sociology fail to be forged.
While the initial impetus for the development of institutional ethnography has come from the postmodern and poststructural bodies of theory (Smith 1999), a necessity remains to go beyond the project of critical sociology towards integration into the tradition of sociological discourse albeit from a reflexive standpoint. The way out of methodological impasse that concentration on "emancipation-regulation dichotomy" (Walby 2007: 1026) of institutional ethnography leads to lies in shifting the attention to the theoretical roots of its research practice rather than in ascription to its methods liberatory effects (DeVault 1999). In order to fulfill its mandate of creating new possibilities for sociological practice (Hammersley 2004; Smith 2005; Vahabzadeh 2003) institutional ethnography should open itself to developments that take place elsewhere in sociological discourse (Law and Urry 2004) in terms that build upon history of theoretical, methodological, and interdisciplinary reflection in sociology.
Analysis of Wright's (2003) Institutional Ethnography: A Tool For Merging Research And Practice
Institutional ethnography focuses on how power is socially organized in everyday experience. Studies of institutionalized marginalization (Cunningham 1992; 2000) show insufficiency of conventional theoretical vocabulary to account for effects that practices derived from dominant culture have (Amstutz 1999). The demand to account for social relevance of multiple cultural spaces (Rocco and West 1998), discriminating effects of cultural power (Guy 1999), and external constitution of power relations (Smith 1987) makes necessary the investigation of relations between individuals and external institutional contexts. These concerns have to be remedied by methodological sensitization to institutional relations of power (Thompson and Schied 1996), ethnographic theories of everyday institutional practices (Sissell 2001), and merger of ethnographic research with theorization of large-scale social processes (Ettling 2001; Heaney 2000). Methodology of institutional ethnography concentrates on the intersection of individual experience with discursive practices, relations of ruling, and macro social processes (Smith 1987: 151-152).
Institutional ethnography covers research of "translocal processes of administration" (Devault and McCoy 2001), multi-sited formation of ruling apparatuses (Grahame and Grahame 2000), and textual organization of ruling relations (Campbell and Gregor 2002). Media of communication that lend themselves to textual analysis (Grahame and Grahame 2000) are research vehicle for institutional ethnography that through their investigation trace power relations across contexts. Institutional ethnography in its understanding of power as derivative of the processes of circulation, accumulation, and interaction is not unlike a methodological application of Foucault's theorization of relations of power articulation (1967: 234). In this regard Smith follows Foucault as she posits individuals as points of activation of a "text's ability to coordinate action and to get things done in specific ways" (Wright 2003: 245) whereby social relations of different scales articulate via texts individually reciprocal relations of power.
Applications of institutional ethnography describe how "assumptions are transported through research reports" (Wright 2003: 245) with frequently unaccounted effects of unequal distribution of chances of access to means for social mobility. These tendencies are exacerbated as economic changes setting in during 1980s bring relatively higher rewards to those meeting advanced skill requirements rather than spreading benefits across economic structure (Johnston and Parker 1987). Institutional ethnography reveals the role of textual mediation in relations between state, capital, and labor as it naturalizes differential distribution of economic rewards (Grahame and Grahame 2000: 5). Through research of everyday institutional practices (Grahame and Grahame 2000) institutional ethnography analyzes how "political discourse and organizational knowledge translate into micro practices" (Wright 2003: 246). Social organization of everyday life also allows for historical reconstruction of practices of marginalization, mobilization, and instrumentalization (Askov 2000; Darville 1995).
Institutional ethnography detects the role of such means of activation as "organizational literacy" (Darville 1995), composed of milti-sited discursive knowledge, that through accumulation, transfer, and valorization allows its carriers to successfully "navigate the social and cultural landscape" (Wright 2003: 246). Institutional ethnographic research documents the structural effects of "practical knowledge about how certain information is organizationally relevant" (Darville 1995: 257), which is implicated in the mediation of relations of power through writing (Campbell and Gregor 2002: 12). Scholarly practice becomes more reflexive of its import for liberatory institutional action (Darville 1995) by means of ethnographic research that highlights the "significance of how organizations employ and use knowledge" (Wright 2003: 247).
Institutional ethnography has significant practical potential for wide range of applied organizational contexts that rests on its address of relations between micro and macro processes, employment of multi-sited research methodology, awareness for social practices that texts activate, and facilitation of change on the local level (Wright 2003: 247). While theoretically attuned to exploring the intersection of macro processes and micro practices, the relevance of institutional ethnography to contexts where governmental policies intersect with feminist concerns, where administrative practices and judicial system interact, and where team learning affects organizational power relations makes it into an important methodological approach (Brooks 1997).
Institutional ethnography covers research of "translocal processes of administration" (Devault and McCoy 2001), multi-sited formation of ruling apparatuses (Grahame and Grahame 2000), and textual organization of ruling relations (Campbell and Gregor 2002). Media of communication that lend themselves to textual analysis (Grahame and Grahame 2000) are research vehicle for institutional ethnography that through their investigation trace power relations across contexts. Institutional ethnography in its understanding of power as derivative of the processes of circulation, accumulation, and interaction is not unlike a methodological application of Foucault's theorization of relations of power articulation (1967: 234). In this regard Smith follows Foucault as she posits individuals as points of activation of a "text's ability to coordinate action and to get things done in specific ways" (Wright 2003: 245) whereby social relations of different scales articulate via texts individually reciprocal relations of power.
Applications of institutional ethnography describe how "assumptions are transported through research reports" (Wright 2003: 245) with frequently unaccounted effects of unequal distribution of chances of access to means for social mobility. These tendencies are exacerbated as economic changes setting in during 1980s bring relatively higher rewards to those meeting advanced skill requirements rather than spreading benefits across economic structure (Johnston and Parker 1987). Institutional ethnography reveals the role of textual mediation in relations between state, capital, and labor as it naturalizes differential distribution of economic rewards (Grahame and Grahame 2000: 5). Through research of everyday institutional practices (Grahame and Grahame 2000) institutional ethnography analyzes how "political discourse and organizational knowledge translate into micro practices" (Wright 2003: 246). Social organization of everyday life also allows for historical reconstruction of practices of marginalization, mobilization, and instrumentalization (Askov 2000; Darville 1995).
Institutional ethnography detects the role of such means of activation as "organizational literacy" (Darville 1995), composed of milti-sited discursive knowledge, that through accumulation, transfer, and valorization allows its carriers to successfully "navigate the social and cultural landscape" (Wright 2003: 246). Institutional ethnographic research documents the structural effects of "practical knowledge about how certain information is organizationally relevant" (Darville 1995: 257), which is implicated in the mediation of relations of power through writing (Campbell and Gregor 2002: 12). Scholarly practice becomes more reflexive of its import for liberatory institutional action (Darville 1995) by means of ethnographic research that highlights the "significance of how organizations employ and use knowledge" (Wright 2003: 247).
Institutional ethnography has significant practical potential for wide range of applied organizational contexts that rests on its address of relations between micro and macro processes, employment of multi-sited research methodology, awareness for social practices that texts activate, and facilitation of change on the local level (Wright 2003: 247). While theoretically attuned to exploring the intersection of macro processes and micro practices, the relevance of institutional ethnography to contexts where governmental policies intersect with feminist concerns, where administrative practices and judicial system interact, and where team learning affects organizational power relations makes it into an important methodological approach (Brooks 1997).
Analysis of Colomy and Rhoades' (1994) Toward a Micro Corrective of Structural Differentiation Theory
To alleviate a macro bias of structural differentiation theory a micro corrective taking into account institutional projects, organization building, and support enlistment strategies allows for description of new levels of differentiation based on "comparative and historical case studies of structural change" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 547). Despite claims that macro and micro levels allow for analytic or empirical reduction (Blau 1987; Collins 1981), recognition of their interpenetration has given significant impetus to comprehensive perspective that seeks to resolve the conceptual distinction between these levels of analysis via integrative theoretical frameworks (Munch and Smelser 1987; Ritzer 1990a, 1990b). Conceptual and empirical shortcomings of either macro or micro approaches open possibilities for their theoretical reconstruction that incorporates neglected analytical dimensions into research programs of multiple speciality areas. To correct macro bias evidenced in its limited empirical validity, structural differentiation theory has to integrate into its conceptual framework notion of institutional entrepreneurs, theory of social movements, and studies of comparative and historical structural change. Critical examination of the insufficient place micro-macro link occupies in structural differentiation theory demonstrates necessity for its micro corrective.
Alexander (1987) reformulates Parson's (1937) means and ends conceptualization as "micro-translation of norms and conditions" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 548) into theory of social agency where micro and macro levels of analysis are linked. Such reconceptualization of social agency incorporates microsociological theories as cases of emphasis on analytical dimension of individual coordination between micro and macro levels so that rational choice theory conceptualizes the macro-micro link as immediate costs calculation, phenomenological sociology and ethnomethodology as order-seeking activity, and symbolic interactionism as individual interpretation (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 548). Whereas micro theories treat macro structures as residual categories contingent on but distinct from action, macro theories "specify their pertinent dimensions" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 549) so that hermeneutic, structural, Durkheimian, and Weberian theories refer to macro level in terms of normative complexes while conflict and Marxist theories in terms of conditional elements. Micro theories can be shown to describe social action along two complementary dimensions of interpretation and strategization the former of which includes typification and invention processes while the latter includes reward maximization and cost minimization.
The two dimensions of action interact since interpretative understanding contributes to production of relevant knowledge for strategic action at the same time as interpretive efforts extend to phenomena manipulated by strategic action. That emergent qualities and constraining effects of social order cannot find adequate explanation by means of micro theories has lead to attempts at their contingent integration with macro theories via conditional effects of macro environments on individual action that reflexively reproduces them. Parsons' division of social systems into society, culture, and personality corresponds to dimensions of social differentiation and political institutions, of solidarity bonds and sense of community, and of social roles and norms and sanctions. Cultural systems affect action along both interpretation and strategization dimensions by supplying reality descriptions, drawing moral boundaries, and institutionalizing value classifications. Capacities of interpretation and strategization of personal systems vary both over life cycle and across social systems. Dimensions of interpretation and strategization "enable actors to formulate new courses of action and recreate their environments" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 550) at the same time as the latter limit the contingent action.
Within the research program of structural differentiation theory micro refers to activities of individuals and groups that propose and implement structural alterations into the institutional order while macro characterizes environmental conditions informing and constraining these activities. Without conceptual model of micro dynamics macro environments are treated as actors by such theories as Marxist, neo-Marxist, and Weberian reifications of social classes and the state even though they are incisive as macro accounts of social transformation (Evans et al. 1985; Hindess 1986; Skocpol 1985). Weak theorization of macro processes exceedingly shifts the analytical balance in favor of micro level that hypervoluntarist treatment of party politics in Marxist tradition (Lenin [1902] 1929) and of charismatic leadership in Weberian tradition (Dow 1968; Fagen 1965) exemplify. Overlooking micro dynamics, structural differentiation theory (Alexander 1992) has largely treated environments as causal actors and has attributed contingency of individual action to systemic agency. A classical work on structural differentiation, Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society ([1893] 1933) connects greater social complexity to higher levels of specialization while it attributes structural adjustments in resources distribution to environmental pressures rather than to individual and group contributions.
Based on Weber's analysis of social institutions, Parsons (1966, 1971) pays more attention to historical detail than does Durkheim at the same time as he likewise neglects individual and group impact on structural change while depicting macro dynamics of institutions and societies. Smelser (1959) offers more sophisticated model of social differentiation which, however, is "almost exclusively concerned with the interface between subsystems and their environments" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 552) as a form of interplay between institutions and social structures. Adopting an interest oriented explanatory model Smelser (1974, 1985, 1990, 1991) has combined functionalist analysis of macro environments with Tocqueville's notion of estates and with primordial groups allowing him to discuss micro dynamics more compellingly even though without avoiding the conflation of macro and micro dimensions. From post-Parsonian perspective, Luhmann (1982, 1990, 1992) explains transition from stratificatory differentiation to functional differentiation via "movement to greater structural complexity" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 552) of social systems that undergo self-referential evolution triggered by interaction with their environments. In this regard, Munch (1985), while favoring in his analysis interaction between systems over individual and group agency, offers more pluralist than Parsons' analysis of institutional change making it conditional on "existing traditions, consistency with general values, directedness towards collective goals, and adaptability to changing situations" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 553).
Accounting for its limited empirical support, the macro bias of differentiation theory follows from treating systems as agents responding to changes in their environments that cause them to differentiate over and above individual and group efforts. Theoretical attention to contribution of individual actors to the process of structural differentiation will bring micro-macro link to bear on explanation of how systems "select one course of institutional change over another" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 553). The growing awareness of impact that individual and group agency has on structural change (Champagne 1992b; Colomy 1990a) accounts for departures from macro interpretation of structural differentiation that emphasize blunted differentiation (Smelser 1990), unequal differentiation (Champagne 1990), uneven differentiation (Champagne 1992a; Colomy 1985) , dedifferentiation (Lechner 1990; Tiryakian 1992), and incomplete differentiation (Surace 1992). Explanatory frameworks of differentiation remain incomplete without attention to micro processes of "coalition formation, negotiation, and group conflict" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 554). Understanding of consequences of differentiation has to include along its positive effect on flexibility, adaptiveness, and effectivity the corresponding negative effects should "new circles of interest" (Colomy 1990b; Rhoades 1990; Smelser 1974, 1985) form in connection to groups that resist further differentiation.
By introducing micro corrective into its explanatory framework, structural differentiation theory extends its empirical and conceptual applicability to comparative study of individual and group agency and its impact on differentiation. Pioneering work in this regard is Eisenstadt's (1964, 1965, 1971, 1973, 1980) that identifies institutional entrepreneurs as groups of agents that move and direct differentiation as they taking lead in promoting structural change "crystallize broad symbolic orientations in new ways, articulate specific goals, and construct novel normative and organizational frameworks" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 554). In contrast to Marx's notion of class, Weber's of the state, and Smelser's of estate, institutional entrepreneurs are groups that are "usually small in number, communicate regularly, share a corporate identity and culture, and are mobilized in pursuit of an identifiable program" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 554). Eisenstadt approaches structural differentiation as an outcome of struggles and alliances among groups (Alexander and Colomy 1985a, 1985b) that makes the process of social change fraught with uncertainty and problems as differentiation depends less on rational response to systemic environments than on the "relatively autonomous processes of group formation and functioning and of goal articulation" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555).
Eisenstadt avoids micro reductivism by limits that environments impose on institutional entrepreneurship within which actors pursue their ends as part of entrepreneurial conduct that in his analytical understanding comprises "agentic processes of typification, invention, and strategization" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555). While the notion of institutional entrepreneurship has been applied to explain the rise of bureaucratic empires (Eisenstadt 1963) and development of ancient civilizations (Eisenstadt 1982, 1985, 1990), it can be extended for the "study of micro dynamics affecting differentiation" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555) along dimensions of new differentiation project articulation, project supporting organization development, and other groups and organizations cooptation. Deriving from existential Marxism (Sartre 1968: 91-166) the notion of an institutional project facilitates sociological generalizations by combining construction of organizational or institutional niche, identification of pretexts for change, recommendation of new differentiation levels, employment of institutional prototypes, and elaboration of appropriate imagery (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555-556). By proposing institutional projects entrepreneurial groups open a space unfolding between their actions and their macro environments (Sartre 1968: 91), which through interaction with micro dynamics contingently steers course of crystallization of new institutions. The process of leigitimization of the structural change that institutional projects instrumentalize as their pretexts includes condemnation of existing conditions (Turner and Killian 1987: 242-245, 266-272) and evaluative institutional contrast (Shibutani 1970) as show empirical studies of feminist strategies of institutional change in urban police departments (Rose 1977; Turner and Colomy 1988).
Most significantly institutional project is defined by the type of advocated differentiation, scope of the promoted change, and proposed "interchange relations between the focal institutions and other subsystems" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 556) as it specifies social sectors of change, indicates its functions, outlines its structure, and makes authority claims. Among the forms of differentiation that institutional prject may advance are autonomous mass media (Alexander 1990a), differentiated public sphere (Mayhew 1990), uneven political party differentiation (Colomy 1990b), unequal functional differentiation (Champagne 1990), and dedifferentiating syndroms (Lechner 1985). The scope of entrepreneurial projects exhibits wide range as their variations include historical revolutions (Eisenstadt 1978), backlash and fundamentalist movements (Lipset and Raab 1978), ethical prophecies (Weber [1922] 1964), cultural revolutions and fundamentalisms (Lechner 1990), and incremental change (Colomy and Tausig 1994). The interchange relations between focal institutitions and their environment take forms of interpenetration (Munch 1987, 1988), which being more widespread is exemplified by relations between educational institutions and the state (Tyack and Hansot 1982), domination, which absolutist states (Anderson 1974), one-party state (Bendix 1978), sectarian dictatorships (Miller 1956), and unencumbered capitalism (Polanyi 1944) embody, and isolation, which corresponds to self-sufficient communities (Berger 1981).
Entrepreneurial projects confront their macro environment as given element of their institutional programs. For instance, educational entrepreneurs endeavor to temper the consequences of political economy (Haskell 1984), educators perceive public high school as means for differential nationalization of immigrants (Tyack and Hansot 1982), secondary education reproduces social and historical patterns of marginalization (Anderson 1988), schools attempt to impart national and moral values to immigrants (Tyack and Hansot 1980), schools try to counteract urban criminality and social problems (Dreeben 1971), schools participate in allocating students into occupational niches (Tyack and Hansot 1980), religious reformers affect social and territorial reach of common schooling (Cremin 1988; Meyer et al. 1979; Tyack and Hansot 1982), and reformers extend social rights by expanding educational system and social services (Perkin 1981; Rodman 1964; Sabine 1961). To extend and justify their project, institutional entrepreneurs employ prototyping based on metaphors giving direction to their activities, frames of reference for innovators and potential supporters, and value-giving archetypes serving as symbolic resource of institutional legitimization.
Cross-societal prototyping occurs in situations of perceived competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis another country, community, or group as is the case when educational systems of industrially advanced and commercially successful countries become models for emulation (Cremin 1961). Cross-institutional prototyping involves "selective borrowing from other institutional spheres in the same society" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 559) by introduction of respected practices and metaphors in order to gain legitimacy (Tyack 1974) and by active adaptation of assimilated exemplars (Diggins 1978). Revivalistic prototyping draws on historical exemplars to stress the continuity between advocated institutional project and previously existing forms that lend legitimacy by providing stable frame of reference (Kass 1965). Prototyping takes course over innovative and derivative phases of its implementation (Colomy 1985) that in the first phase articulates, specifies and constructs an altered institutional order while in the second the developing institutional structure itself serves as point of evaluative reference for other reformers (Tyack and Hansot 1982). Typifying processes build upon cultural content of institutional projects that usually refers, in separate or conjoint manner, to injustice of existing arrangements and to legitimization of alternative structures, which formation of differentiated political parties illustrates (Wallace 1969, 1973).
New cultural frameworks facilitate inventive dynamics of institutional project implementation when long-standing conditions become subject of critical reassessement and when more satisfactory alternatives receive expression in social movements for their advocacy (Blumer 1939; Smelser 1991; Turner and Killian 1987). Cultural themes and symbols strategically legitimate introduction of alternatives to institutional order among the examples of which are social progressivism in universal public schooling (Ravitch 1974), "preparation for life" in public high schools (Cremin 1961), and professionalization in civil service and administration (Larson 1977, 1984; Tyack 1974). Institutional projects are subject to continuous revision under the influence of communicative feedback within entrepreneurial group, reconciliation of disagreements over project's objectives, coalitions with other groups with divergent projects, project modification to appease or undermine opposition, and changes in opportunities structure of the macro environments (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 560).
Institutional projects require group coordination as part of mobilization of means for their realization that also reflects efforts to articulate objectives of innovative action. While below certain thresholds of contention internal conflict is not inimical to effective project organization (Shibutani 1978), when dissent stalls institutional change a more cohesive constellation of actors has to carry forward and sustain the organization. Preexisting communication networks, organizations, and communities are either redeployed in the process of construction of organizations around institutional projects or substantially altered within emergent relations, which "typically involves modification of conventional modes of interaction and the articulation of new relationships" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 561). In organization building either redeployment or emergence of relations usually predominate to the extent that the attempts to implement both these types undermine the supporting social foundations of the entrepreneurial project (Calhoun 1983). However, the institutional project redeploying organizations, networks, and communities as it promotes structural change undergoes significant transformation that emergent process within its own organization trigger (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 562).
The emergent effects of redeployment on the organizations and communities involved in institutional project of structural change subordinates them to the imperatives of the emergent organization that takes shape on the existing but changing institutional base, as was the case with anti-segregation project of more inclusive society (Morris 1981). Emergent dynamics are amplified "when two or more networks, organizations, and/or communities are simultaneously redeployed toward a common end" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 562) to sometimes create new institutional structure that can accumulate power and authority in its own right (Branch 1988). Emergent dynamics of institutional entrepreneurship culminates in creation of clearly separate organization that features distinct leadership group and institutional project that sets it apart from preexisting structures (Killian 1984). In the absense of significant barriers to collective action, redeployment of existing structures rather than creation of new not only incurs less expense (Morris 1981) but also follows the strategic consideration of micro-macro dynamics favoring either redeployment or emergence in organization building. Consequently, organizations, networks, and communities rule out their redeployment in support of an institutional project that can negatively affect ties with their organizational environments, which promotes predominantly emergent and innovative organization building for projects that meet with hostility (Hole and Levine 1971; Freeman 1973).
Institutional projects require creation of new organizations also when overcoming resistance of existing organizations and networks can exhaust resources of the entrepreneurial group. However, the assessment of how worthwhile redeployment may prove to be depends on "collective definition of a situation" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 563) that by changing the interpretive understanding of the macro environment in which the organization building occurs also alters the perception of strategic interest upon whicb other groups act (Freeman 1973). Among the changes in the macro environments that can diminish the obstacts to the organization building and thus precipitate its formation are unravelling of political and economic alliances, electoral realignments caused by migrations, and international politics (McAdam 1982). Reconstitution of macro environment of networks and communities can foster organization building through, for example, new channels of communication, characteristic culture, increase in similar organizations, identities organized around shared norms (Bledstein 1976; Haskell 1977) and network-related channels of influence (Tyack 1974; Tyack and Hansot 1982), which can enable implementation of related institutiomal projects.
Via reconfiguration of social ties changes in macro environments make available new resources for organization building. In response to environment marked by political fragmentation, weak centralization, and local diversity arise decentralized organizations, which enables them to flexibly react to local conditions, cope with unanticipated events, confront mobilized opposition, and disseminate local project or strategy modifications (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 565). As internal environments for institutional projects serve incentives relating to their purposes, material rewards, and solidairity providing support for the motivation committed by the members of the entrepreneurial group that through internalization and public circulation of its motives generates support among its adherents and macro environments (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 565). When envisioned project aims at collective good, rewards for the associated effort that mobilized group reaps (Olson 1965) include material advantages to its leaders in the form of control over significant patronage (Colomy 1985), and powerful administrative posts (Tyack 1974), and such intangible benefits as prestige, elite social circles membership, and public recognition (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 565).
Whether enduring organization is built on the basis of redeployment or emergence of cohesive groups around institutional projects for their members, regardless of organization size (Olson 1965), they provide both solidary incentives 0f firendship, mutual identification, esteem, and expressive gratification together with respective sanctions, and commitment forms such as sacrifice, investment, renunciation, and communion (Kanter 1972). Taking sustained part in the activities of the institutional project group and in the struggle for realization of its goals can fundamentally change how personal strategic calculations are made by reconstructing participants' schemes of interpretation, conceptions of rewards and risks, and views of continued organizational involvement (McAdam 1988). Internal adaptation carries influence on the type of organization that project group eventually translates into its structure as it affirms the shared values of the group (Rothschild-Whitt 1979). Disagreements over character of the project, its implementation strategies, organization structure, program modifications to enlist support, and accomodations to opposition or recalcitrant environment drive the need for compromise (Turner and Killian 1987) that necessitates articulation of either consistency, coherence, and continuity (Berger 1981) or coertion, exception, denial, and concealment (Pestello 1991).
When project amendments or new strategies are proposed, affective responses are common consequence of compromise (Hochschild 1983) that giving rise to perceptions of unfair redistribution of power or abandonment of core ideas may "endanger concerted action within the entrepreneurial group and the success of the institutional project" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 567) which typically calls for misgivings reassessment, project prioritization, and group cohesion mobilization. To implement institutional project its leaders need legitimation, power, and resources that require capacity both to garner agreement of various groups and to surmount opposition the efficacy which is conditional on macro environments. Since strategic action takes recourse to interpretive frameworks and macro structures, theoretical reconstruction of the calculation behind it cannot be restricted to micro level of rewards and costs. Mobilization of support takes typified form of a repertoire of collective action (Tilly 1978) that relies on slow change of action strategies, perceptions of obviousness, and meeting acceptability expectations, which nevertheless leaves room for its reflexive application making tactical adjustments, innovation, and novel action forms possible.
Selection process of action tactics from within the group's repertoire is guided by probable success calculation, associated costs, and response estimates whereas lack of success, high cost, incompatibility with the project, or trenchant opposition prompt selection of alternative or invention of new courses of action. Structure of opportunities, configuration of macro environment, and power of opposing groups condition the propensity of action repertoire for invention so that the greater the levels of differentiation the more dispersed are support resources, the more differentiated and inclusive society is the more likely cross-cutting coalitions are, and the more differentiated symbol systems are the more likely are alternative structures to arise respectively (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 568). Openness of opportunity structure being dependent on relative position that enterpreneurial groups, their supporting bodies, and their larger constituencies occupy, higher levels of local social differentiation create more openings for mobility and inclusion through which minority groups can improve their position (Alexander 1990b). Under conditions of closed opportunity structure institutional projects promoting greater levels of differentiation have to rely on innovative strategies of action to reach accommodation of their program by political authorities and various elites (Piven and Cloward 1977), which leads these strategies to be subsequently conventionalized, added to action repertoire, and appropriated for other projects.
The tactical dynamics obtaining between project groups and their opponents influences the choice or invention of a particular strategy when adoption and redeployment of tactical innovations prompts tactical counters by their opponents, which neutralizes old and stimulates further strategic inventions (McAdam 1983). Exchange mechanisms facilitate support for an institutional project on the premise of benefits deriving from it such as offers of situational advantages, valuable information, and public legitimation for its allies (Tierney 1982). The application of negative inducement strategies in reaction to intractable constituencies, uncongenial elites, and obstinate opposition relies on perception that their outcome is more effective than restraint from coersion (Turner and Killian 1987), that sessation of attack tactics provides sufficient incentive for consessions (McAdam 1982), and that these macro environments "worsen their condition unless compliance is granted" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 570).
The relative amount and structure of resources that institutional entrepreneurs control condition their ability to remunerate supporters and to penalize opponents, which gives inherent advantage to proponents of instututional projects most richly supplied with resouces to become successful entrepreneurs which explains disproportianate elite representation among them (Eisenstadt 1964). Under circumstances of rapid transformations undermining political stability resource-poor groups by taking recourse to diverse forms of mass disobedience can occasionally bring about signficant institutional changes (Piven and Cloward 1977) the process of which is reciprocally amplified within even minimal opportunity structure by the entrepreneurial group's accumulation of resources by appealing to constituencies, networks, and organizations that are sympathetic to their project (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 570). Entrepreneurs interpetatively align the framing of their institutional project towards complenetarities with orientations of their constituencies, sometimes appealing in universalistic terms beyond their situational advantage (Parsons 1963a, 1963b, 1968), the employed frames of which are "a vital but unmet need, presenting a favorable benefit-cost ratio, invoking solidary ties, and appealing to common value commitments" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 571).
The alternatives proposed by institutional projects employ adaptive frames of salient claim to argue for inadequacy of the existing level of differentiation and complementary argument that the promoted program meets poorly recognized needs more adequately (Knowles 1991). Often institutional entrepreneurs depict their project as a suitable investment, exaggerate the anticipated benefits, and underestimate the probable costs (Smelser 1991). Institutional entrepreneurs rely on solidary identification by highlighting commonalities that putatively obtain between themselves, their constituencies, and their potentional allies. Typically entrepreneurs possess an acute awareness to the dominant values and motive vocabularies of their time (Mills 1940). Exchange processes can modify the initial project of institututional innovators as seeking its generalized support in broad outline they modify their program implementation in response to the demads of outside groups on whom access to support and resources is contingent (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 572). Established authorities may seek to undermine institutional innovation project by assimilation of enterpreneurial organization, cooptation of its leaders, and negotiated exchange of concessions on both sides (Piven and Cloward 1977).
While resistance commonly accompanies efforts to change institutional order the related group conflict does not have direct impact on resultant structural differentiation since possible range of outcomes of the opposition to an enterpreneurial project stretches from failure to even partially realize its goals to nearly complete institutionalization. To derail institutional projects opponents typically deploy countervailing strategies, allies and resources, challenge entrepreneurial frames, and furnish oppositional frames of reference (Colomy 1990a). When the institutional project advancing greater degree of differentiation receives public, formal, and legal affirmation, powerful constituencies can empty it of practical substance by subverting its objectives, which converts structural change into symbolic achievement (Rhoades 1990). Incomplete differentiation is likely outcome of competition between groups with approximately equal power that struggle to control particular functions and dispute rival claims to exclusive authority (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 573; Surace 1992). In macro environments divided by lines of primordial belonging, competition between enterpreneurial groups creates parallel structures (Smelser 1991: 107; Tyack 1966). Should insitutional entrepreneurs considerably gain in support and resources, persistent struggle by opponents to institional change leads to their eventual adoption of constituent elements of the enterpreneurial project to partially appropriate the resources mobilized by the innovators and to polarize their differences from the innovative project the unintended consequence of which is modification of existing order (Colomy 1985; Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 573-574).
While in the long run implementation of an institional project may meet with success or changes in macro environment can produce favorable opportunity structure (Smelser 1991), in the short run attempts at introduction of new levels of differentiation usually evoke staunch opposition that causing entrepreneurial group to fail can prompt it to redouble its efforts, modify its project, and revise its strategy (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 574). Should efforts at structural differentiation succeed, its legitimacy and viability may be questioned by its critics on the grounds of divergence from society's most fundamental principles, defense of traditional rights and privileges and of public welfare, and perceived inadequacy in addressing emergent problems (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 574). Thus, micro correcive of differentiation theory enables systematic and comparative study of institional projects, analytic examination of organization building via support generation and resistance defusion, reflexive account of coalition formation, exchange processes and competition and conflict, and theoretical awareness of contingence on institutional project of adaptive and performative effects its implementation frequently has on further structural differentiation (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 575).
To examine particular reconfigurations of institutional order, a tenable theory of transformation of modernity has to operate with specific and concrete terms (Alexander 1992) so that its investigation has to include elaboration on its articulation as institional project, its translation into organization building, and its strategies of acquisition of support and prevailing over opposition (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 575).
Alexander (1987) reformulates Parson's (1937) means and ends conceptualization as "micro-translation of norms and conditions" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 548) into theory of social agency where micro and macro levels of analysis are linked. Such reconceptualization of social agency incorporates microsociological theories as cases of emphasis on analytical dimension of individual coordination between micro and macro levels so that rational choice theory conceptualizes the macro-micro link as immediate costs calculation, phenomenological sociology and ethnomethodology as order-seeking activity, and symbolic interactionism as individual interpretation (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 548). Whereas micro theories treat macro structures as residual categories contingent on but distinct from action, macro theories "specify their pertinent dimensions" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 549) so that hermeneutic, structural, Durkheimian, and Weberian theories refer to macro level in terms of normative complexes while conflict and Marxist theories in terms of conditional elements. Micro theories can be shown to describe social action along two complementary dimensions of interpretation and strategization the former of which includes typification and invention processes while the latter includes reward maximization and cost minimization.
The two dimensions of action interact since interpretative understanding contributes to production of relevant knowledge for strategic action at the same time as interpretive efforts extend to phenomena manipulated by strategic action. That emergent qualities and constraining effects of social order cannot find adequate explanation by means of micro theories has lead to attempts at their contingent integration with macro theories via conditional effects of macro environments on individual action that reflexively reproduces them. Parsons' division of social systems into society, culture, and personality corresponds to dimensions of social differentiation and political institutions, of solidarity bonds and sense of community, and of social roles and norms and sanctions. Cultural systems affect action along both interpretation and strategization dimensions by supplying reality descriptions, drawing moral boundaries, and institutionalizing value classifications. Capacities of interpretation and strategization of personal systems vary both over life cycle and across social systems. Dimensions of interpretation and strategization "enable actors to formulate new courses of action and recreate their environments" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 550) at the same time as the latter limit the contingent action.
Within the research program of structural differentiation theory micro refers to activities of individuals and groups that propose and implement structural alterations into the institutional order while macro characterizes environmental conditions informing and constraining these activities. Without conceptual model of micro dynamics macro environments are treated as actors by such theories as Marxist, neo-Marxist, and Weberian reifications of social classes and the state even though they are incisive as macro accounts of social transformation (Evans et al. 1985; Hindess 1986; Skocpol 1985). Weak theorization of macro processes exceedingly shifts the analytical balance in favor of micro level that hypervoluntarist treatment of party politics in Marxist tradition (Lenin [1902] 1929) and of charismatic leadership in Weberian tradition (Dow 1968; Fagen 1965) exemplify. Overlooking micro dynamics, structural differentiation theory (Alexander 1992) has largely treated environments as causal actors and has attributed contingency of individual action to systemic agency. A classical work on structural differentiation, Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society ([1893] 1933) connects greater social complexity to higher levels of specialization while it attributes structural adjustments in resources distribution to environmental pressures rather than to individual and group contributions.
Based on Weber's analysis of social institutions, Parsons (1966, 1971) pays more attention to historical detail than does Durkheim at the same time as he likewise neglects individual and group impact on structural change while depicting macro dynamics of institutions and societies. Smelser (1959) offers more sophisticated model of social differentiation which, however, is "almost exclusively concerned with the interface between subsystems and their environments" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 552) as a form of interplay between institutions and social structures. Adopting an interest oriented explanatory model Smelser (1974, 1985, 1990, 1991) has combined functionalist analysis of macro environments with Tocqueville's notion of estates and with primordial groups allowing him to discuss micro dynamics more compellingly even though without avoiding the conflation of macro and micro dimensions. From post-Parsonian perspective, Luhmann (1982, 1990, 1992) explains transition from stratificatory differentiation to functional differentiation via "movement to greater structural complexity" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 552) of social systems that undergo self-referential evolution triggered by interaction with their environments. In this regard, Munch (1985), while favoring in his analysis interaction between systems over individual and group agency, offers more pluralist than Parsons' analysis of institutional change making it conditional on "existing traditions, consistency with general values, directedness towards collective goals, and adaptability to changing situations" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 553).
Accounting for its limited empirical support, the macro bias of differentiation theory follows from treating systems as agents responding to changes in their environments that cause them to differentiate over and above individual and group efforts. Theoretical attention to contribution of individual actors to the process of structural differentiation will bring micro-macro link to bear on explanation of how systems "select one course of institutional change over another" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 553). The growing awareness of impact that individual and group agency has on structural change (Champagne 1992b; Colomy 1990a) accounts for departures from macro interpretation of structural differentiation that emphasize blunted differentiation (Smelser 1990), unequal differentiation (Champagne 1990), uneven differentiation (Champagne 1992a; Colomy 1985) , dedifferentiation (Lechner 1990; Tiryakian 1992), and incomplete differentiation (Surace 1992). Explanatory frameworks of differentiation remain incomplete without attention to micro processes of "coalition formation, negotiation, and group conflict" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 554). Understanding of consequences of differentiation has to include along its positive effect on flexibility, adaptiveness, and effectivity the corresponding negative effects should "new circles of interest" (Colomy 1990b; Rhoades 1990; Smelser 1974, 1985) form in connection to groups that resist further differentiation.
By introducing micro corrective into its explanatory framework, structural differentiation theory extends its empirical and conceptual applicability to comparative study of individual and group agency and its impact on differentiation. Pioneering work in this regard is Eisenstadt's (1964, 1965, 1971, 1973, 1980) that identifies institutional entrepreneurs as groups of agents that move and direct differentiation as they taking lead in promoting structural change "crystallize broad symbolic orientations in new ways, articulate specific goals, and construct novel normative and organizational frameworks" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 554). In contrast to Marx's notion of class, Weber's of the state, and Smelser's of estate, institutional entrepreneurs are groups that are "usually small in number, communicate regularly, share a corporate identity and culture, and are mobilized in pursuit of an identifiable program" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 554). Eisenstadt approaches structural differentiation as an outcome of struggles and alliances among groups (Alexander and Colomy 1985a, 1985b) that makes the process of social change fraught with uncertainty and problems as differentiation depends less on rational response to systemic environments than on the "relatively autonomous processes of group formation and functioning and of goal articulation" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555).
Eisenstadt avoids micro reductivism by limits that environments impose on institutional entrepreneurship within which actors pursue their ends as part of entrepreneurial conduct that in his analytical understanding comprises "agentic processes of typification, invention, and strategization" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555). While the notion of institutional entrepreneurship has been applied to explain the rise of bureaucratic empires (Eisenstadt 1963) and development of ancient civilizations (Eisenstadt 1982, 1985, 1990), it can be extended for the "study of micro dynamics affecting differentiation" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555) along dimensions of new differentiation project articulation, project supporting organization development, and other groups and organizations cooptation. Deriving from existential Marxism (Sartre 1968: 91-166) the notion of an institutional project facilitates sociological generalizations by combining construction of organizational or institutional niche, identification of pretexts for change, recommendation of new differentiation levels, employment of institutional prototypes, and elaboration of appropriate imagery (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 555-556). By proposing institutional projects entrepreneurial groups open a space unfolding between their actions and their macro environments (Sartre 1968: 91), which through interaction with micro dynamics contingently steers course of crystallization of new institutions. The process of leigitimization of the structural change that institutional projects instrumentalize as their pretexts includes condemnation of existing conditions (Turner and Killian 1987: 242-245, 266-272) and evaluative institutional contrast (Shibutani 1970) as show empirical studies of feminist strategies of institutional change in urban police departments (Rose 1977; Turner and Colomy 1988).
Most significantly institutional project is defined by the type of advocated differentiation, scope of the promoted change, and proposed "interchange relations between the focal institutions and other subsystems" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 556) as it specifies social sectors of change, indicates its functions, outlines its structure, and makes authority claims. Among the forms of differentiation that institutional prject may advance are autonomous mass media (Alexander 1990a), differentiated public sphere (Mayhew 1990), uneven political party differentiation (Colomy 1990b), unequal functional differentiation (Champagne 1990), and dedifferentiating syndroms (Lechner 1985). The scope of entrepreneurial projects exhibits wide range as their variations include historical revolutions (Eisenstadt 1978), backlash and fundamentalist movements (Lipset and Raab 1978), ethical prophecies (Weber [1922] 1964), cultural revolutions and fundamentalisms (Lechner 1990), and incremental change (Colomy and Tausig 1994). The interchange relations between focal institutitions and their environment take forms of interpenetration (Munch 1987, 1988), which being more widespread is exemplified by relations between educational institutions and the state (Tyack and Hansot 1982), domination, which absolutist states (Anderson 1974), one-party state (Bendix 1978), sectarian dictatorships (Miller 1956), and unencumbered capitalism (Polanyi 1944) embody, and isolation, which corresponds to self-sufficient communities (Berger 1981).
Entrepreneurial projects confront their macro environment as given element of their institutional programs. For instance, educational entrepreneurs endeavor to temper the consequences of political economy (Haskell 1984), educators perceive public high school as means for differential nationalization of immigrants (Tyack and Hansot 1982), secondary education reproduces social and historical patterns of marginalization (Anderson 1988), schools attempt to impart national and moral values to immigrants (Tyack and Hansot 1980), schools try to counteract urban criminality and social problems (Dreeben 1971), schools participate in allocating students into occupational niches (Tyack and Hansot 1980), religious reformers affect social and territorial reach of common schooling (Cremin 1988; Meyer et al. 1979; Tyack and Hansot 1982), and reformers extend social rights by expanding educational system and social services (Perkin 1981; Rodman 1964; Sabine 1961). To extend and justify their project, institutional entrepreneurs employ prototyping based on metaphors giving direction to their activities, frames of reference for innovators and potential supporters, and value-giving archetypes serving as symbolic resource of institutional legitimization.
Cross-societal prototyping occurs in situations of perceived competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis another country, community, or group as is the case when educational systems of industrially advanced and commercially successful countries become models for emulation (Cremin 1961). Cross-institutional prototyping involves "selective borrowing from other institutional spheres in the same society" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 559) by introduction of respected practices and metaphors in order to gain legitimacy (Tyack 1974) and by active adaptation of assimilated exemplars (Diggins 1978). Revivalistic prototyping draws on historical exemplars to stress the continuity between advocated institutional project and previously existing forms that lend legitimacy by providing stable frame of reference (Kass 1965). Prototyping takes course over innovative and derivative phases of its implementation (Colomy 1985) that in the first phase articulates, specifies and constructs an altered institutional order while in the second the developing institutional structure itself serves as point of evaluative reference for other reformers (Tyack and Hansot 1982). Typifying processes build upon cultural content of institutional projects that usually refers, in separate or conjoint manner, to injustice of existing arrangements and to legitimization of alternative structures, which formation of differentiated political parties illustrates (Wallace 1969, 1973).
New cultural frameworks facilitate inventive dynamics of institutional project implementation when long-standing conditions become subject of critical reassessement and when more satisfactory alternatives receive expression in social movements for their advocacy (Blumer 1939; Smelser 1991; Turner and Killian 1987). Cultural themes and symbols strategically legitimate introduction of alternatives to institutional order among the examples of which are social progressivism in universal public schooling (Ravitch 1974), "preparation for life" in public high schools (Cremin 1961), and professionalization in civil service and administration (Larson 1977, 1984; Tyack 1974). Institutional projects are subject to continuous revision under the influence of communicative feedback within entrepreneurial group, reconciliation of disagreements over project's objectives, coalitions with other groups with divergent projects, project modification to appease or undermine opposition, and changes in opportunities structure of the macro environments (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 560).
Institutional projects require group coordination as part of mobilization of means for their realization that also reflects efforts to articulate objectives of innovative action. While below certain thresholds of contention internal conflict is not inimical to effective project organization (Shibutani 1978), when dissent stalls institutional change a more cohesive constellation of actors has to carry forward and sustain the organization. Preexisting communication networks, organizations, and communities are either redeployed in the process of construction of organizations around institutional projects or substantially altered within emergent relations, which "typically involves modification of conventional modes of interaction and the articulation of new relationships" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 561). In organization building either redeployment or emergence of relations usually predominate to the extent that the attempts to implement both these types undermine the supporting social foundations of the entrepreneurial project (Calhoun 1983). However, the institutional project redeploying organizations, networks, and communities as it promotes structural change undergoes significant transformation that emergent process within its own organization trigger (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 562).
The emergent effects of redeployment on the organizations and communities involved in institutional project of structural change subordinates them to the imperatives of the emergent organization that takes shape on the existing but changing institutional base, as was the case with anti-segregation project of more inclusive society (Morris 1981). Emergent dynamics are amplified "when two or more networks, organizations, and/or communities are simultaneously redeployed toward a common end" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 562) to sometimes create new institutional structure that can accumulate power and authority in its own right (Branch 1988). Emergent dynamics of institutional entrepreneurship culminates in creation of clearly separate organization that features distinct leadership group and institutional project that sets it apart from preexisting structures (Killian 1984). In the absense of significant barriers to collective action, redeployment of existing structures rather than creation of new not only incurs less expense (Morris 1981) but also follows the strategic consideration of micro-macro dynamics favoring either redeployment or emergence in organization building. Consequently, organizations, networks, and communities rule out their redeployment in support of an institutional project that can negatively affect ties with their organizational environments, which promotes predominantly emergent and innovative organization building for projects that meet with hostility (Hole and Levine 1971; Freeman 1973).
Institutional projects require creation of new organizations also when overcoming resistance of existing organizations and networks can exhaust resources of the entrepreneurial group. However, the assessment of how worthwhile redeployment may prove to be depends on "collective definition of a situation" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 563) that by changing the interpretive understanding of the macro environment in which the organization building occurs also alters the perception of strategic interest upon whicb other groups act (Freeman 1973). Among the changes in the macro environments that can diminish the obstacts to the organization building and thus precipitate its formation are unravelling of political and economic alliances, electoral realignments caused by migrations, and international politics (McAdam 1982). Reconstitution of macro environment of networks and communities can foster organization building through, for example, new channels of communication, characteristic culture, increase in similar organizations, identities organized around shared norms (Bledstein 1976; Haskell 1977) and network-related channels of influence (Tyack 1974; Tyack and Hansot 1982), which can enable implementation of related institutiomal projects.
Via reconfiguration of social ties changes in macro environments make available new resources for organization building. In response to environment marked by political fragmentation, weak centralization, and local diversity arise decentralized organizations, which enables them to flexibly react to local conditions, cope with unanticipated events, confront mobilized opposition, and disseminate local project or strategy modifications (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 565). As internal environments for institutional projects serve incentives relating to their purposes, material rewards, and solidairity providing support for the motivation committed by the members of the entrepreneurial group that through internalization and public circulation of its motives generates support among its adherents and macro environments (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 565). When envisioned project aims at collective good, rewards for the associated effort that mobilized group reaps (Olson 1965) include material advantages to its leaders in the form of control over significant patronage (Colomy 1985), and powerful administrative posts (Tyack 1974), and such intangible benefits as prestige, elite social circles membership, and public recognition (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 565).
Whether enduring organization is built on the basis of redeployment or emergence of cohesive groups around institutional projects for their members, regardless of organization size (Olson 1965), they provide both solidary incentives 0f firendship, mutual identification, esteem, and expressive gratification together with respective sanctions, and commitment forms such as sacrifice, investment, renunciation, and communion (Kanter 1972). Taking sustained part in the activities of the institutional project group and in the struggle for realization of its goals can fundamentally change how personal strategic calculations are made by reconstructing participants' schemes of interpretation, conceptions of rewards and risks, and views of continued organizational involvement (McAdam 1988). Internal adaptation carries influence on the type of organization that project group eventually translates into its structure as it affirms the shared values of the group (Rothschild-Whitt 1979). Disagreements over character of the project, its implementation strategies, organization structure, program modifications to enlist support, and accomodations to opposition or recalcitrant environment drive the need for compromise (Turner and Killian 1987) that necessitates articulation of either consistency, coherence, and continuity (Berger 1981) or coertion, exception, denial, and concealment (Pestello 1991).
When project amendments or new strategies are proposed, affective responses are common consequence of compromise (Hochschild 1983) that giving rise to perceptions of unfair redistribution of power or abandonment of core ideas may "endanger concerted action within the entrepreneurial group and the success of the institutional project" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 567) which typically calls for misgivings reassessment, project prioritization, and group cohesion mobilization. To implement institutional project its leaders need legitimation, power, and resources that require capacity both to garner agreement of various groups and to surmount opposition the efficacy which is conditional on macro environments. Since strategic action takes recourse to interpretive frameworks and macro structures, theoretical reconstruction of the calculation behind it cannot be restricted to micro level of rewards and costs. Mobilization of support takes typified form of a repertoire of collective action (Tilly 1978) that relies on slow change of action strategies, perceptions of obviousness, and meeting acceptability expectations, which nevertheless leaves room for its reflexive application making tactical adjustments, innovation, and novel action forms possible.
Selection process of action tactics from within the group's repertoire is guided by probable success calculation, associated costs, and response estimates whereas lack of success, high cost, incompatibility with the project, or trenchant opposition prompt selection of alternative or invention of new courses of action. Structure of opportunities, configuration of macro environment, and power of opposing groups condition the propensity of action repertoire for invention so that the greater the levels of differentiation the more dispersed are support resources, the more differentiated and inclusive society is the more likely cross-cutting coalitions are, and the more differentiated symbol systems are the more likely are alternative structures to arise respectively (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 568). Openness of opportunity structure being dependent on relative position that enterpreneurial groups, their supporting bodies, and their larger constituencies occupy, higher levels of local social differentiation create more openings for mobility and inclusion through which minority groups can improve their position (Alexander 1990b). Under conditions of closed opportunity structure institutional projects promoting greater levels of differentiation have to rely on innovative strategies of action to reach accommodation of their program by political authorities and various elites (Piven and Cloward 1977), which leads these strategies to be subsequently conventionalized, added to action repertoire, and appropriated for other projects.
The tactical dynamics obtaining between project groups and their opponents influences the choice or invention of a particular strategy when adoption and redeployment of tactical innovations prompts tactical counters by their opponents, which neutralizes old and stimulates further strategic inventions (McAdam 1983). Exchange mechanisms facilitate support for an institutional project on the premise of benefits deriving from it such as offers of situational advantages, valuable information, and public legitimation for its allies (Tierney 1982). The application of negative inducement strategies in reaction to intractable constituencies, uncongenial elites, and obstinate opposition relies on perception that their outcome is more effective than restraint from coersion (Turner and Killian 1987), that sessation of attack tactics provides sufficient incentive for consessions (McAdam 1982), and that these macro environments "worsen their condition unless compliance is granted" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 570).
The relative amount and structure of resources that institutional entrepreneurs control condition their ability to remunerate supporters and to penalize opponents, which gives inherent advantage to proponents of instututional projects most richly supplied with resouces to become successful entrepreneurs which explains disproportianate elite representation among them (Eisenstadt 1964). Under circumstances of rapid transformations undermining political stability resource-poor groups by taking recourse to diverse forms of mass disobedience can occasionally bring about signficant institutional changes (Piven and Cloward 1977) the process of which is reciprocally amplified within even minimal opportunity structure by the entrepreneurial group's accumulation of resources by appealing to constituencies, networks, and organizations that are sympathetic to their project (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 570). Entrepreneurs interpetatively align the framing of their institutional project towards complenetarities with orientations of their constituencies, sometimes appealing in universalistic terms beyond their situational advantage (Parsons 1963a, 1963b, 1968), the employed frames of which are "a vital but unmet need, presenting a favorable benefit-cost ratio, invoking solidary ties, and appealing to common value commitments" (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 571).
The alternatives proposed by institutional projects employ adaptive frames of salient claim to argue for inadequacy of the existing level of differentiation and complementary argument that the promoted program meets poorly recognized needs more adequately (Knowles 1991). Often institutional entrepreneurs depict their project as a suitable investment, exaggerate the anticipated benefits, and underestimate the probable costs (Smelser 1991). Institutional entrepreneurs rely on solidary identification by highlighting commonalities that putatively obtain between themselves, their constituencies, and their potentional allies. Typically entrepreneurs possess an acute awareness to the dominant values and motive vocabularies of their time (Mills 1940). Exchange processes can modify the initial project of institututional innovators as seeking its generalized support in broad outline they modify their program implementation in response to the demads of outside groups on whom access to support and resources is contingent (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 572). Established authorities may seek to undermine institutional innovation project by assimilation of enterpreneurial organization, cooptation of its leaders, and negotiated exchange of concessions on both sides (Piven and Cloward 1977).
While resistance commonly accompanies efforts to change institutional order the related group conflict does not have direct impact on resultant structural differentiation since possible range of outcomes of the opposition to an enterpreneurial project stretches from failure to even partially realize its goals to nearly complete institutionalization. To derail institutional projects opponents typically deploy countervailing strategies, allies and resources, challenge entrepreneurial frames, and furnish oppositional frames of reference (Colomy 1990a). When the institutional project advancing greater degree of differentiation receives public, formal, and legal affirmation, powerful constituencies can empty it of practical substance by subverting its objectives, which converts structural change into symbolic achievement (Rhoades 1990). Incomplete differentiation is likely outcome of competition between groups with approximately equal power that struggle to control particular functions and dispute rival claims to exclusive authority (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 573; Surace 1992). In macro environments divided by lines of primordial belonging, competition between enterpreneurial groups creates parallel structures (Smelser 1991: 107; Tyack 1966). Should insitutional entrepreneurs considerably gain in support and resources, persistent struggle by opponents to institional change leads to their eventual adoption of constituent elements of the enterpreneurial project to partially appropriate the resources mobilized by the innovators and to polarize their differences from the innovative project the unintended consequence of which is modification of existing order (Colomy 1985; Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 573-574).
While in the long run implementation of an institional project may meet with success or changes in macro environment can produce favorable opportunity structure (Smelser 1991), in the short run attempts at introduction of new levels of differentiation usually evoke staunch opposition that causing entrepreneurial group to fail can prompt it to redouble its efforts, modify its project, and revise its strategy (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 574). Should efforts at structural differentiation succeed, its legitimacy and viability may be questioned by its critics on the grounds of divergence from society's most fundamental principles, defense of traditional rights and privileges and of public welfare, and perceived inadequacy in addressing emergent problems (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 574). Thus, micro correcive of differentiation theory enables systematic and comparative study of institional projects, analytic examination of organization building via support generation and resistance defusion, reflexive account of coalition formation, exchange processes and competition and conflict, and theoretical awareness of contingence on institutional project of adaptive and performative effects its implementation frequently has on further structural differentiation (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 575).
To examine particular reconfigurations of institutional order, a tenable theory of transformation of modernity has to operate with specific and concrete terms (Alexander 1992) so that its investigation has to include elaboration on its articulation as institional project, its translation into organization building, and its strategies of acquisition of support and prevailing over opposition (Colomy and Rhoades 1994: 575).
Analysis of Gartman's (1998) Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Post-Fordism?
Explanation by Jameson and Harvey of transition from modernism to postmodernism by economic transition from Fordist to post-Fordist accumulation as a causally syncronous development misses the constitutively mutual dimension of interaction between culture and economy. As formulated by Le Corbusier ([1923] 1986), principles of modern architecture self-consciously followed the techniques that made mass production and consumption possible (Frampton 1973; 1992): "standardization, simplicity, and mechanization" (Gartman 1998: 119). The beginning of postmodernism is associated by its theorists with industrial standardization and regimentation losing its social hold in 1970s (Jencks 1991), with moving away from mechanization, centralization, and hierarchy (Moore 1967), and with transition to post-industrial society based on information and communication with stress on difference, image, and ephemerality (Portoghesi 1983). Marxist academic tradition, represented by Harvey (1989), Grossberg (1992), Hall (1989), Soja (1989), and Jameson (1984, 1991), explaining the emergence of post-modern culture of depthlessness, difference, and diversity by corresponding economic transition to post-Fordism fails to recognize the place of cultural dynamics in economic processes (Gartman 1998: 120).
Though the concept of postmodernism lacks precision (Frow 1991), its emergence stands in relation to the crises of institutions characteristic of modernity (Denzin 1993) the transformations in which can receive adequate analitical description by specifying the relations between culture and economy in micro terms (Gartman 1998: 120). As opposed to late capitalism, theorized by Mandel (1975) as starting in 1945, Jameson's (1994) theorization of postmodernism is in line with other theorists that link its cultural manifestation with post-Fordism (Davis 1985). Both Jameson and Harvey follow chronology of such corresponding developments as the stage of competitive and unregulated capitalism until 1980s reflected in realist style of Balzac, Dickens, and Stendhal, the stage of monopolies of Fordist capitalism with its standardized mass production until 1970s giving rise to modernism of Joyce, Picasso and Le Corbusier, and the stage of post-Fordist capitalism with flexible production on global scale leading to postmodernist culture. Drawing on Lukacs, Adorno, and Benjamin, this Hegelian Marxist approach maintains the the social contradictions each mode of production generates find their reflection "not in the content of the culture but in its forms" (Gartman 1998: 121) into which artists unconsciously incribe the causes of the contraditions they articulate (Jameson 1971, 1981).
Theorization of Fordism depends on the assertion of the regulation school of economics (Aglietta 1979; Lipietz 1987) that specific social institutions of organization, regulation, and motivation are critical to development of capitalism to the regime of accumulation of which they give stability as a corresponding mode of regulation. According to regulationists (Aglietta 1979: 111-112; Palloix 1976; Braverman 1974; Gartman 1986), Fordism as a new regime of accumulation has emerged in America where Taylor's scientific management and Ford's standardization shifted control over production process from workers to managers as part of minimization of time expenses, maximization of production speed, and optimization of technology use. To transform the mass-produced products into revenue the regime of Fordism also extended into management of consumption by increasing the consumer base through raising wages of the working classes, by promoting consumption lifestyle through welfare provisions, and by enforcing dependence on high wages through research of and intervention into domestic life (Gramsci [1930] 1971; Gartman 1986; Meyer 1981). On its own, however, Fordism could not secure mass consumption, until rule-governed institutions, labor laws, and trade unions "created a collective bargaining system" (Gartman 1998: 122) which found support in interventionist Keynesian state implementing social spending, fiscal, and monetary policies (Aglietta 1979; Piore and Sabel 1984; Harvey 1985: 205-209).
Jameson and Harvey's argument is that emergence of modernist culture is response to contradictions of Fordism that under the impact of rationalization (Weber [1922] 1968) and alienation (Marx [1844] 1975) has made cultural reconsiliation of objectified, abstracted, and alienated subjects with moden industrial accumulation imperative (Lukacs [1923] 1971). The contradiction between rapid historical change and permanence of religion and nature is registered in modernist works as the shock of the new that chaos and contingency of Fordist accumulation unleashed set the stage for conservative attempts to revive lost tradition by W. B. Yeats and T. S. Eliot, on the one hand, and for avant-garde creation of aesthetics that celebrated technological progress as was done by Le Corbusier, Leger, and Mondrian, on the other hand (Harvey 1989: 10-12, 31-35; Jameson 1991: 302-313; 1994: 8-21, 84-86). The comression of space driven by acceleration of circulation through railroad, automobile, telegraph, assembly line, and real estate market leads to superficial perception of space as object to which modernists responded with search for deep meaning as established by Freudian reading of disconnected symptoms as manifestations of repressed needs and by Cubist, New Objectivist, and other avant-garde assembly of fragmented spaces into novel style or language of representation (Harvey 1989: 20-23; Jameson 1991: 6-16; 1994: 21-32).
The contradictory effects of Fordism on subjectivity are fragmentation as individuals became embedded into system of industrial rationalization and centeredness as mass consumption isolates people within family and personal property that modernist works sought to overcome in either bringing alientation from work to the privacy of home, as did Kafka's writing, or forcing autonomous individual to confront senseless world, as Munch's paintings show (Jameson 1991: 14-16, 311-313). Among modernist art forms, architecture best exemplifies the cultural contradictions of Fordism in that the modernist movement launched in 1920s by Le Corbusier, van der Rohe, and Gropius announced radical break with historical styles, adopted unadorned, rationalized, and standardized forms, designed affordable public housing for mass production, soughted to express inner rational structure of buildings on their surfaces, and integrated Fordist separation between production and consumption into urban design (Le Corbusier [1923] 1986; [1925] 1987).
In its discussion of Fordist crisis of accumulation in 1960s and transition in 1970s to post-Fordist production and commodities, regulation school (Aglietta 1979; Lipietz 1987) neglects cultural influences at work in the dynamics of decline of American productivity and profits and increase in international market share that European, Asian, and Latin American manufacturers gained (Gartman 1998: 124). As competitive pressures in markets governed by economies of scale of standardized production pushed the post-Fordist producers to pursue economies of scope offered by diversifying into distinct products and incorporating continuous technological improvement, the transition generated a post-Fordist system both of consumption where mass markets gave way to specialized niche markets and of production where machines and workers had to be quickly adaptible and integrated into chains of decision-making (Aglietta 1979; Amin 1994; Piore and Sabel 1984). Pursuing competitive advantage, post-Fordist corporations have sought to undermine the collective bargaining power of labor by relocation to low-wage, non-unionized areas, by downsizing, decentralizing, and outsourcing production processes, and by maintaining corporate control over increasingly globalized and diffuse networks of exploitation (Amin and Malmberg 1994; Harvey 1989; Soja 1989).
The post-Fordist marketplace polarizes consumers according to their purchasing power when upscale goods of flexible specialization are no longer accessible to those whom wage reductions and outsourcing affect most as mass-produced goods they continue to buy are no longer included into Keynesian state support of demand management, collective bargaining, and welfare legislation but are reorganized within fiscal and monetary policies oriented at corporate competitiveness, military spending, and employment rather than welfare (Esser and Hirsch 1994; Harvey 1989: 166-172; Jessop 1994; Lipietz 1994). According to position shared by Jameson and Harvey, postmodern culture encodes the contradictions of post-Fordism in terms of residually modernist opposition between change and permanence, playful celebration of depthless surface effects, and directionless registration of post-historical narratives in chaotic flux (Gartman 1998: 125). In view of Jameson and Harvey, post-Fordist economy has post-historical character since modernism's assertion of progress stemming from contrast between modernizing and pre-modern societies loses its validity as other contries modernize at the same time as acceleration of commercial circulation of fashions, styles, and images replaces the importance of innovation with aimless self-referentiality (Jameson 1991: 16-25, 309-311; 1994: 11-17; Harvey 1989: 54-58, 85-87).
Abandoning the dialectics of depth and surface, postmodernism lays stress on simultaneity as capitalism includes all spaces into circuits of its circulation thereby creating complex geography of "simultaneous, irreducible, incommensurable space" (Gartman 1998: 126) and on superficiality as capitalist homogenization reduces economic differences among places, cultures, and nations simultaneously with increasing its complexity as vast global system that escapes representation of its deep structure (Jameson 1991: 37-38, 341-343, 356-376; 1994: 40-43, 204-205). Post-Fordism replaces the neurotic subject of modernism with decentered and schizophrenic of postmodernism since the centered self of Fordism is replaced with consumerist mobilization that destroys psychological ogranization of geography of everyday life it with work and home separation in favor of multiplication of desires, needs, and satisfactions that flood away the structure of the self into experience of eternal present where unstable signifiers no longer offer subjective anchoring (Grossberg 1992: 351-353;Harvey 1989: 53-54; Jameson 1991: 14-16, 25-31; 1994: 31-32). Architecture of Venturi, Graves, and Moore is more exemplary representation of cultural forms of postmodernism in that it abandons historical progression, refers with historical symbols and styles to human meaning rather than to machines, employs historical references as decontextualized superficial decoration, emphasizes radical disjuncture, spatial closure and functional differentiation, stresses context-specific difference rather than universal formal language, and relinquishes claims to rational intervention into urban design (Jencks 1991; Venturi 1966; Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour 1972).
The consistent privileging of economy by Jameson and Harvey in order to explan cultural transformations tightly binds two different series of phenomena that rather than exhibit synchronous development possess irreducible complexity dictating chronologies proper to each substantive logic according to which different struggles and articulations take place (Grossberg 1992: 325-326) that necessitates consideration of cultural development in terms that are systemically irreducible to an explanation by recourse to a universal historicity of economy (Frow 1991: 11, 21-23). The adherence of Harvey and Jameson to Marxist model of relations between economic base and cultural superstructure leaves room for postulating dialectical relation between the two spheres that goes beyond mechanical causal impact of economy towards recognition of the active participation by culture in reproduction of economic institutions of production and consumption (Frow 1991: 14). The adequate account of systemic relations into which culture can enter necessitates reformulation of instutitutional confugurations where relations in which stand Fordism to modernism and post-Fordism to postmodernism are complex, dialectical, and context-dependent (Gartman 1998: 127).
As opposed to high cultural pattern of change that Jameson and Harvey trace in architecture and visual arts where modernist and postmodernist moments can be shown to follow in the steps of the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism, the popular consumer culture of the mass market has gone through formal changes associated with postmodernism of 1970s at far earlier stage of 1920s when the diffentiation and circulation of superficial styles were commercially harnessed as soon as mass production became part of a regime of accumulation (Gartman 1998: 127). In the United States fashion industry, the transition in 1920s from standardization reflective of "emergence of mass society of classless and functional uniformity" (Gartman 1998: 127) to diversity of individual styles in 1930s responded to imperatives of market differentiation and individualization as a means of stimulating demand with fashion becoming segmented across horizontal dimension of taste (Ewen and Ewen 1982: 162-232; Wilson 1990: 210-224) rather than vertical of class (Veblen [1899] 1934). While modernist aesthetic was only beginning to make its impact on architecture in Europe in late 1920s, the American aesthetics of automobile production have become distinctly postmodernist by mid-1920s as "stylistic diversity, superficial decoration, and constantly changing models" (Gartman 1998: 128) have allowed manufacturers to reorganize mass consumer market into customized niches by exploiting functional distinction betweeen standardized hardware inside and individualized decorative appearances.
Mobility promoted by cars has become embedded in systematic privileging of space over time as individuals were encouraged to resolve contradictions of economic chances, social control, and cultural conflict by driving to another city, to suburban residence, and to entertainment venue (Gartman 1998: 128), which within the larger economic configuration took form of post-historical cycle of directionless cultural change (Gartman 1994). The purportedly postmodern preoccupation with "diversity, style, and beauty" (Gartman 1998: 128) had long been the major feature of Fordism both in its saturation phase in 1920s and in the crisis times of 1930s (Meikle 1979) as cultural stimulation of aggregate demand was permeating consumer markets in their large and small masses. All of the consumer features by which post-Fordism is described as a distinct mode of accumulation offering competitive advantages over Fordism are fully supplied by the latter production processes offering "diversity, distinction, and change in consumer goods" (Gartman 1998: 128) via flexible standardization of inaccessible inside of product shells separated from inexpensive accoutrements and ostentatious outside components that gave apearance of progress (Gartman 1994).
The inability of theoretical models of both Marxist and regulationist schools to account for specificities of economic production processes, of regional histories of Europe and America, and of social meaning of both high and low art has led Jameson and Harvey among them to neglect the full extent of cultural processes they described while developing discourse on post-Fordism. The delayed arrival of Fordist mass production to Europe, beginning in earnerst only after World War II (Anderson 1984; Lipietz 1987; Piore and Sabel 1984), has repeated the early stages of American Fordism with greater stress on standardization, functionalism, and simplicity (Batchelor 1994: 130) with developed consumer culture of differentiation, decoration, and customization not emerging until 1960s (Gartman 1998: 129). The difference in historical trajectories of modernism in Europe, where Fordist capitalism clashed with pre-capitalist class structure (Anderson 1984), and America, where market forces were given free reign (Gartman 1998: 129), are better explained by the structural differences in relations among social spheres that define state-centric Fordism in Europe and market-based in America in cultural terms. In Europe, the relative weakness of bourgeoisie has led to institutional underdevelopment of mass production and of free competition on the one hand (Nolan 1994), and to entrenched and unchallenged domination by aristocracy of politics, economy, and the arts on the other hand (Mayer 1981).
After World War I has exposed economic backwardness of European monarchist regimes the necessity to industrialize by adopting the Fordist model has not been met with social consensus which would resolve conflicting interests of working classes in increasing wages and consumer market development, of professional and administrative classes in research and technology support and in corporate power shift to managers, and of industrial bourgeoisie in minimizing overhead costs and in maintaining cartel agreements (Gartman 1998: 129). Under pressure to create workplaces and to raise living standards for the working classes that brought unstable democratic regimes into power, the political classes lacking support from disunited and retrograde industrial bourgeoisie have initiated a state-driven attempt at Fordist indutrialization the technocratic program of which was supported by artists championing the rationalized, functional, and industrial forms as the modernist aesthetic (Lane 1985; Nolan 1994; Maier 1970). In the centralised effort by administrative and artistic elites to increase supply of affordable housing large residential compounds were subsidized by the public and mixed funding in the planning of which architects took active role as it gave them opportunity to employ modernist aesthetic, to incorporate industrialized construction components, and to popularize the regime oriented at mass production and consumption (Boudon 1969; Lane 1985; Nolan 1994).
In the United States the capitalist, bourgeois, and working class development has consistently reinforced each other as industrialists accumulated capital and invested into technology to remain competitive, as bourgeois professionals were widely incorporated into industrial production to raise its efficiency, and as laboring classes has their needs addressed by social workers and purchasing power raised by private industry (Weinstein 1968; Wiebe 1967). While the functional aesthetic of modernism was widely promoted for designing environment at work asd well as at home in the United States, the primarily consumer market orientation of the mass production has rapidly adjusted to popular classes' desire to satisfy desires for expression, decoration, and individuality (Cohen 1982), which happened in Europe only after aggregate demand reached saturation in 1960s (Gartman 1998: 131). While European modernism and architecture have assumed pinoneering role early in the 20th century, the market-driven development of the arts in the United States has deferred the development of architectural modernism until after 1950s with functionalist forms primarily restricted to indusrial buildings wheareas residential and urban architectural styles have consistently tended to be organic and ornamental Wright's designs being primary example of which (Frampton 1992).
After World War II, the administrative centers of capitalist production located in urban cores began to express modernist features to lend rational, functionalist, and abstract appearance to the dominating power of corporations and government artistically reinforced by the aesthetic authority of such emigre architects as van der Rohe at the same time as suburban America has remained attached to consumer ornamentalism of extavagant automobile design and historical housing styles (Gartman 1998: 131). Gradually American fashion started to cater to suburbanized lifestyles that offered romantic, domestic, and casual wear to female spouses encouraged to engage in parenting at home while their partners commuted to work in corporate suits but also developing taste for leisure dress serving mediatized needs of expression, individuality, and sport (Ehrenreich 1983; Ewen and Ewen 1982). However, the early connection of postmodernist aesthetic with American Fordism as its consumer culture does not explain its reemergence as distinct cultural phenomenon in the 1970s after the Fordist regime of economic accumulation ran into crisis since its causes lie as much in culture as in economy where the cultural contradictions of transition from Fordism to post-Fordism have equally left their mark (Gartman 1998: 131).
As soon as the desire for individuality has become the marketing message of mass consumption the limitations of the superficial differencies have become increasingly apparent to the consumers distinguishing mass produced uniformity beneath the superficial variation that standardized production allowed which led to development of countercultural fashion styles based on cultures of workers, peasants, protest movements, and minorities (Ewen and Ewen 1982: 241-251; Wilson 1990: 215-217). Similarly, the United States car manufacturers have become victims of the unchanging formula of their initial success combinng underlying standardization with superficial variation that with increasing competition in late 1950s and 1960s has accelerated the pace of stylistic changes to the rate that exposed the cultural homogeneity of designs and opened inroads for automobile importers that widened the consumer choice beyond corporate conformism (Gartman 1994). From 1960s the attempts to move away from standardization as a strategy to maintain positions in mass markets have negatively affected revenues for reasons of increased overhead, accumulated inventory cost, decelerated production pace, and increased coordination difficulty, even though the sales have risen in response to genuine expansion of consumer choice (Gartman 1998: 133).
What became associated with post-Fordism is the product of struggle between management and organized labor that at the time of its occurring in 1970s on the one hand showed inadequacy of the Fordist managerial techniques of discipline enforcement, workforce downsizing, and labor productivity intensification to constitutively decentralized production process and on the other hand pressed the imperatives of product diversification towards implementation of flexible production system in response to low unemployment, falling profits, and strong labor unions (Gartman 1994). The development of consumer market beyond the point of saturation towards celebration of "divesity, decoration, symbolism, and ephemerality" (Gartman 1998: 133) has spilled in the 1960s into the arts where modernism's association with corporate establishment pressed emerging artists to draw inspiration from consumer culture, as pop art has done (Huyssen 1986), and to submit to critique large scale urban renewal projects that eviscerated their architectural diversity, complexity, and historicity (Jacobs 1961). The repositioning of architecture within the canon of high culture away from the abstract modernist aesthetic towards eclecticism, decoration, and spectacle has reconceptualized postmodern architecture as language that had to use popularly accessible vocabulary to have appeal that would extend beyond narrow elite circles (Venturi 1966; Venturi et al. 1972).
Under the banners of postmodern attack on the principles of modernism, the 1980s had also saw the dissipation of Fordist regime of regulation as corporations undermined urban working class by moving overseas or further decentralizing, as social differentiation between professions and working classes continued to grow apace, and as consumer market steeply fragmented to satisfy the distinctive demands of the newly rich (Gartman 1998: 134). In the 1980s, cities desperate to compensate for plant closures and corporate relocation began to court the affluent classes with convention centers, shopping malls, historic restorations, and restaurant districts (Sorkin 1992; Zukin 1991) which both were insulated from the areas where abandoned and unsightly industrial buildings remained (Davis 1990: 221-263) and spreaded the postmodernist consumption-oriented aesthetic to the rest of the downtown architecture joining in the playful decoration, pastiche, and self-referentiality (Harvey 1989). As part of the wider consumer culture, postmodernism deployed "double coding" (Jencks 1986: 14) that blended such works within the high culture as architecture with consumer vernacular (Gartman 1998: 134) that yielded widely differentiated meaning effects that speak both to theoretically informed cognoscenti and to entertainment-seeking masses the illusionistic effect of which bespeaks ironic play with style, representation, and difference (Baudrillard 1994: 43-44).
The concept of postmodernism registers important cultural changes occurring in connection to economic transitions from Fordist mode of accumulation to post-Fordist mode of regulation that need to be put in comparative and empirical context to account for diverse cultural developments that are interactively embedded in particular social structures the specific configurations of which give rise to different cultural responses dependent on their respective structural position that are yet to receive adequate reflection in theorization of dialectical relationship between culture and economy (Gartman 1998: 135). The movement from the macro descriptions by Jameson and Harvey of the relationship between postmodernism and post-Fordism has to pass through more detailed specification of the connection that micro processes have with the particular social structures within which they take place that Munch's (1981; 1982) reformulation of structural functionalism in terms that take into account regional and historical specificities offers.
Though the concept of postmodernism lacks precision (Frow 1991), its emergence stands in relation to the crises of institutions characteristic of modernity (Denzin 1993) the transformations in which can receive adequate analitical description by specifying the relations between culture and economy in micro terms (Gartman 1998: 120). As opposed to late capitalism, theorized by Mandel (1975) as starting in 1945, Jameson's (1994) theorization of postmodernism is in line with other theorists that link its cultural manifestation with post-Fordism (Davis 1985). Both Jameson and Harvey follow chronology of such corresponding developments as the stage of competitive and unregulated capitalism until 1980s reflected in realist style of Balzac, Dickens, and Stendhal, the stage of monopolies of Fordist capitalism with its standardized mass production until 1970s giving rise to modernism of Joyce, Picasso and Le Corbusier, and the stage of post-Fordist capitalism with flexible production on global scale leading to postmodernist culture. Drawing on Lukacs, Adorno, and Benjamin, this Hegelian Marxist approach maintains the the social contradictions each mode of production generates find their reflection "not in the content of the culture but in its forms" (Gartman 1998: 121) into which artists unconsciously incribe the causes of the contraditions they articulate (Jameson 1971, 1981).
Theorization of Fordism depends on the assertion of the regulation school of economics (Aglietta 1979; Lipietz 1987) that specific social institutions of organization, regulation, and motivation are critical to development of capitalism to the regime of accumulation of which they give stability as a corresponding mode of regulation. According to regulationists (Aglietta 1979: 111-112; Palloix 1976; Braverman 1974; Gartman 1986), Fordism as a new regime of accumulation has emerged in America where Taylor's scientific management and Ford's standardization shifted control over production process from workers to managers as part of minimization of time expenses, maximization of production speed, and optimization of technology use. To transform the mass-produced products into revenue the regime of Fordism also extended into management of consumption by increasing the consumer base through raising wages of the working classes, by promoting consumption lifestyle through welfare provisions, and by enforcing dependence on high wages through research of and intervention into domestic life (Gramsci [1930] 1971; Gartman 1986; Meyer 1981). On its own, however, Fordism could not secure mass consumption, until rule-governed institutions, labor laws, and trade unions "created a collective bargaining system" (Gartman 1998: 122) which found support in interventionist Keynesian state implementing social spending, fiscal, and monetary policies (Aglietta 1979; Piore and Sabel 1984; Harvey 1985: 205-209).
Jameson and Harvey's argument is that emergence of modernist culture is response to contradictions of Fordism that under the impact of rationalization (Weber [1922] 1968) and alienation (Marx [1844] 1975) has made cultural reconsiliation of objectified, abstracted, and alienated subjects with moden industrial accumulation imperative (Lukacs [1923] 1971). The contradiction between rapid historical change and permanence of religion and nature is registered in modernist works as the shock of the new that chaos and contingency of Fordist accumulation unleashed set the stage for conservative attempts to revive lost tradition by W. B. Yeats and T. S. Eliot, on the one hand, and for avant-garde creation of aesthetics that celebrated technological progress as was done by Le Corbusier, Leger, and Mondrian, on the other hand (Harvey 1989: 10-12, 31-35; Jameson 1991: 302-313; 1994: 8-21, 84-86). The comression of space driven by acceleration of circulation through railroad, automobile, telegraph, assembly line, and real estate market leads to superficial perception of space as object to which modernists responded with search for deep meaning as established by Freudian reading of disconnected symptoms as manifestations of repressed needs and by Cubist, New Objectivist, and other avant-garde assembly of fragmented spaces into novel style or language of representation (Harvey 1989: 20-23; Jameson 1991: 6-16; 1994: 21-32).
The contradictory effects of Fordism on subjectivity are fragmentation as individuals became embedded into system of industrial rationalization and centeredness as mass consumption isolates people within family and personal property that modernist works sought to overcome in either bringing alientation from work to the privacy of home, as did Kafka's writing, or forcing autonomous individual to confront senseless world, as Munch's paintings show (Jameson 1991: 14-16, 311-313). Among modernist art forms, architecture best exemplifies the cultural contradictions of Fordism in that the modernist movement launched in 1920s by Le Corbusier, van der Rohe, and Gropius announced radical break with historical styles, adopted unadorned, rationalized, and standardized forms, designed affordable public housing for mass production, soughted to express inner rational structure of buildings on their surfaces, and integrated Fordist separation between production and consumption into urban design (Le Corbusier [1923] 1986; [1925] 1987).
In its discussion of Fordist crisis of accumulation in 1960s and transition in 1970s to post-Fordist production and commodities, regulation school (Aglietta 1979; Lipietz 1987) neglects cultural influences at work in the dynamics of decline of American productivity and profits and increase in international market share that European, Asian, and Latin American manufacturers gained (Gartman 1998: 124). As competitive pressures in markets governed by economies of scale of standardized production pushed the post-Fordist producers to pursue economies of scope offered by diversifying into distinct products and incorporating continuous technological improvement, the transition generated a post-Fordist system both of consumption where mass markets gave way to specialized niche markets and of production where machines and workers had to be quickly adaptible and integrated into chains of decision-making (Aglietta 1979; Amin 1994; Piore and Sabel 1984). Pursuing competitive advantage, post-Fordist corporations have sought to undermine the collective bargaining power of labor by relocation to low-wage, non-unionized areas, by downsizing, decentralizing, and outsourcing production processes, and by maintaining corporate control over increasingly globalized and diffuse networks of exploitation (Amin and Malmberg 1994; Harvey 1989; Soja 1989).
The post-Fordist marketplace polarizes consumers according to their purchasing power when upscale goods of flexible specialization are no longer accessible to those whom wage reductions and outsourcing affect most as mass-produced goods they continue to buy are no longer included into Keynesian state support of demand management, collective bargaining, and welfare legislation but are reorganized within fiscal and monetary policies oriented at corporate competitiveness, military spending, and employment rather than welfare (Esser and Hirsch 1994; Harvey 1989: 166-172; Jessop 1994; Lipietz 1994). According to position shared by Jameson and Harvey, postmodern culture encodes the contradictions of post-Fordism in terms of residually modernist opposition between change and permanence, playful celebration of depthless surface effects, and directionless registration of post-historical narratives in chaotic flux (Gartman 1998: 125). In view of Jameson and Harvey, post-Fordist economy has post-historical character since modernism's assertion of progress stemming from contrast between modernizing and pre-modern societies loses its validity as other contries modernize at the same time as acceleration of commercial circulation of fashions, styles, and images replaces the importance of innovation with aimless self-referentiality (Jameson 1991: 16-25, 309-311; 1994: 11-17; Harvey 1989: 54-58, 85-87).
Abandoning the dialectics of depth and surface, postmodernism lays stress on simultaneity as capitalism includes all spaces into circuits of its circulation thereby creating complex geography of "simultaneous, irreducible, incommensurable space" (Gartman 1998: 126) and on superficiality as capitalist homogenization reduces economic differences among places, cultures, and nations simultaneously with increasing its complexity as vast global system that escapes representation of its deep structure (Jameson 1991: 37-38, 341-343, 356-376; 1994: 40-43, 204-205). Post-Fordism replaces the neurotic subject of modernism with decentered and schizophrenic of postmodernism since the centered self of Fordism is replaced with consumerist mobilization that destroys psychological ogranization of geography of everyday life it with work and home separation in favor of multiplication of desires, needs, and satisfactions that flood away the structure of the self into experience of eternal present where unstable signifiers no longer offer subjective anchoring (Grossberg 1992: 351-353;Harvey 1989: 53-54; Jameson 1991: 14-16, 25-31; 1994: 31-32). Architecture of Venturi, Graves, and Moore is more exemplary representation of cultural forms of postmodernism in that it abandons historical progression, refers with historical symbols and styles to human meaning rather than to machines, employs historical references as decontextualized superficial decoration, emphasizes radical disjuncture, spatial closure and functional differentiation, stresses context-specific difference rather than universal formal language, and relinquishes claims to rational intervention into urban design (Jencks 1991; Venturi 1966; Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour 1972).
The consistent privileging of economy by Jameson and Harvey in order to explan cultural transformations tightly binds two different series of phenomena that rather than exhibit synchronous development possess irreducible complexity dictating chronologies proper to each substantive logic according to which different struggles and articulations take place (Grossberg 1992: 325-326) that necessitates consideration of cultural development in terms that are systemically irreducible to an explanation by recourse to a universal historicity of economy (Frow 1991: 11, 21-23). The adherence of Harvey and Jameson to Marxist model of relations between economic base and cultural superstructure leaves room for postulating dialectical relation between the two spheres that goes beyond mechanical causal impact of economy towards recognition of the active participation by culture in reproduction of economic institutions of production and consumption (Frow 1991: 14). The adequate account of systemic relations into which culture can enter necessitates reformulation of instutitutional confugurations where relations in which stand Fordism to modernism and post-Fordism to postmodernism are complex, dialectical, and context-dependent (Gartman 1998: 127).
As opposed to high cultural pattern of change that Jameson and Harvey trace in architecture and visual arts where modernist and postmodernist moments can be shown to follow in the steps of the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism, the popular consumer culture of the mass market has gone through formal changes associated with postmodernism of 1970s at far earlier stage of 1920s when the diffentiation and circulation of superficial styles were commercially harnessed as soon as mass production became part of a regime of accumulation (Gartman 1998: 127). In the United States fashion industry, the transition in 1920s from standardization reflective of "emergence of mass society of classless and functional uniformity" (Gartman 1998: 127) to diversity of individual styles in 1930s responded to imperatives of market differentiation and individualization as a means of stimulating demand with fashion becoming segmented across horizontal dimension of taste (Ewen and Ewen 1982: 162-232; Wilson 1990: 210-224) rather than vertical of class (Veblen [1899] 1934). While modernist aesthetic was only beginning to make its impact on architecture in Europe in late 1920s, the American aesthetics of automobile production have become distinctly postmodernist by mid-1920s as "stylistic diversity, superficial decoration, and constantly changing models" (Gartman 1998: 128) have allowed manufacturers to reorganize mass consumer market into customized niches by exploiting functional distinction betweeen standardized hardware inside and individualized decorative appearances.
Mobility promoted by cars has become embedded in systematic privileging of space over time as individuals were encouraged to resolve contradictions of economic chances, social control, and cultural conflict by driving to another city, to suburban residence, and to entertainment venue (Gartman 1998: 128), which within the larger economic configuration took form of post-historical cycle of directionless cultural change (Gartman 1994). The purportedly postmodern preoccupation with "diversity, style, and beauty" (Gartman 1998: 128) had long been the major feature of Fordism both in its saturation phase in 1920s and in the crisis times of 1930s (Meikle 1979) as cultural stimulation of aggregate demand was permeating consumer markets in their large and small masses. All of the consumer features by which post-Fordism is described as a distinct mode of accumulation offering competitive advantages over Fordism are fully supplied by the latter production processes offering "diversity, distinction, and change in consumer goods" (Gartman 1998: 128) via flexible standardization of inaccessible inside of product shells separated from inexpensive accoutrements and ostentatious outside components that gave apearance of progress (Gartman 1994).
The inability of theoretical models of both Marxist and regulationist schools to account for specificities of economic production processes, of regional histories of Europe and America, and of social meaning of both high and low art has led Jameson and Harvey among them to neglect the full extent of cultural processes they described while developing discourse on post-Fordism. The delayed arrival of Fordist mass production to Europe, beginning in earnerst only after World War II (Anderson 1984; Lipietz 1987; Piore and Sabel 1984), has repeated the early stages of American Fordism with greater stress on standardization, functionalism, and simplicity (Batchelor 1994: 130) with developed consumer culture of differentiation, decoration, and customization not emerging until 1960s (Gartman 1998: 129). The difference in historical trajectories of modernism in Europe, where Fordist capitalism clashed with pre-capitalist class structure (Anderson 1984), and America, where market forces were given free reign (Gartman 1998: 129), are better explained by the structural differences in relations among social spheres that define state-centric Fordism in Europe and market-based in America in cultural terms. In Europe, the relative weakness of bourgeoisie has led to institutional underdevelopment of mass production and of free competition on the one hand (Nolan 1994), and to entrenched and unchallenged domination by aristocracy of politics, economy, and the arts on the other hand (Mayer 1981).
After World War I has exposed economic backwardness of European monarchist regimes the necessity to industrialize by adopting the Fordist model has not been met with social consensus which would resolve conflicting interests of working classes in increasing wages and consumer market development, of professional and administrative classes in research and technology support and in corporate power shift to managers, and of industrial bourgeoisie in minimizing overhead costs and in maintaining cartel agreements (Gartman 1998: 129). Under pressure to create workplaces and to raise living standards for the working classes that brought unstable democratic regimes into power, the political classes lacking support from disunited and retrograde industrial bourgeoisie have initiated a state-driven attempt at Fordist indutrialization the technocratic program of which was supported by artists championing the rationalized, functional, and industrial forms as the modernist aesthetic (Lane 1985; Nolan 1994; Maier 1970). In the centralised effort by administrative and artistic elites to increase supply of affordable housing large residential compounds were subsidized by the public and mixed funding in the planning of which architects took active role as it gave them opportunity to employ modernist aesthetic, to incorporate industrialized construction components, and to popularize the regime oriented at mass production and consumption (Boudon 1969; Lane 1985; Nolan 1994).
In the United States the capitalist, bourgeois, and working class development has consistently reinforced each other as industrialists accumulated capital and invested into technology to remain competitive, as bourgeois professionals were widely incorporated into industrial production to raise its efficiency, and as laboring classes has their needs addressed by social workers and purchasing power raised by private industry (Weinstein 1968; Wiebe 1967). While the functional aesthetic of modernism was widely promoted for designing environment at work asd well as at home in the United States, the primarily consumer market orientation of the mass production has rapidly adjusted to popular classes' desire to satisfy desires for expression, decoration, and individuality (Cohen 1982), which happened in Europe only after aggregate demand reached saturation in 1960s (Gartman 1998: 131). While European modernism and architecture have assumed pinoneering role early in the 20th century, the market-driven development of the arts in the United States has deferred the development of architectural modernism until after 1950s with functionalist forms primarily restricted to indusrial buildings wheareas residential and urban architectural styles have consistently tended to be organic and ornamental Wright's designs being primary example of which (Frampton 1992).
After World War II, the administrative centers of capitalist production located in urban cores began to express modernist features to lend rational, functionalist, and abstract appearance to the dominating power of corporations and government artistically reinforced by the aesthetic authority of such emigre architects as van der Rohe at the same time as suburban America has remained attached to consumer ornamentalism of extavagant automobile design and historical housing styles (Gartman 1998: 131). Gradually American fashion started to cater to suburbanized lifestyles that offered romantic, domestic, and casual wear to female spouses encouraged to engage in parenting at home while their partners commuted to work in corporate suits but also developing taste for leisure dress serving mediatized needs of expression, individuality, and sport (Ehrenreich 1983; Ewen and Ewen 1982). However, the early connection of postmodernist aesthetic with American Fordism as its consumer culture does not explain its reemergence as distinct cultural phenomenon in the 1970s after the Fordist regime of economic accumulation ran into crisis since its causes lie as much in culture as in economy where the cultural contradictions of transition from Fordism to post-Fordism have equally left their mark (Gartman 1998: 131).
As soon as the desire for individuality has become the marketing message of mass consumption the limitations of the superficial differencies have become increasingly apparent to the consumers distinguishing mass produced uniformity beneath the superficial variation that standardized production allowed which led to development of countercultural fashion styles based on cultures of workers, peasants, protest movements, and minorities (Ewen and Ewen 1982: 241-251; Wilson 1990: 215-217). Similarly, the United States car manufacturers have become victims of the unchanging formula of their initial success combinng underlying standardization with superficial variation that with increasing competition in late 1950s and 1960s has accelerated the pace of stylistic changes to the rate that exposed the cultural homogeneity of designs and opened inroads for automobile importers that widened the consumer choice beyond corporate conformism (Gartman 1994). From 1960s the attempts to move away from standardization as a strategy to maintain positions in mass markets have negatively affected revenues for reasons of increased overhead, accumulated inventory cost, decelerated production pace, and increased coordination difficulty, even though the sales have risen in response to genuine expansion of consumer choice (Gartman 1998: 133).
What became associated with post-Fordism is the product of struggle between management and organized labor that at the time of its occurring in 1970s on the one hand showed inadequacy of the Fordist managerial techniques of discipline enforcement, workforce downsizing, and labor productivity intensification to constitutively decentralized production process and on the other hand pressed the imperatives of product diversification towards implementation of flexible production system in response to low unemployment, falling profits, and strong labor unions (Gartman 1994). The development of consumer market beyond the point of saturation towards celebration of "divesity, decoration, symbolism, and ephemerality" (Gartman 1998: 133) has spilled in the 1960s into the arts where modernism's association with corporate establishment pressed emerging artists to draw inspiration from consumer culture, as pop art has done (Huyssen 1986), and to submit to critique large scale urban renewal projects that eviscerated their architectural diversity, complexity, and historicity (Jacobs 1961). The repositioning of architecture within the canon of high culture away from the abstract modernist aesthetic towards eclecticism, decoration, and spectacle has reconceptualized postmodern architecture as language that had to use popularly accessible vocabulary to have appeal that would extend beyond narrow elite circles (Venturi 1966; Venturi et al. 1972).
Under the banners of postmodern attack on the principles of modernism, the 1980s had also saw the dissipation of Fordist regime of regulation as corporations undermined urban working class by moving overseas or further decentralizing, as social differentiation between professions and working classes continued to grow apace, and as consumer market steeply fragmented to satisfy the distinctive demands of the newly rich (Gartman 1998: 134). In the 1980s, cities desperate to compensate for plant closures and corporate relocation began to court the affluent classes with convention centers, shopping malls, historic restorations, and restaurant districts (Sorkin 1992; Zukin 1991) which both were insulated from the areas where abandoned and unsightly industrial buildings remained (Davis 1990: 221-263) and spreaded the postmodernist consumption-oriented aesthetic to the rest of the downtown architecture joining in the playful decoration, pastiche, and self-referentiality (Harvey 1989). As part of the wider consumer culture, postmodernism deployed "double coding" (Jencks 1986: 14) that blended such works within the high culture as architecture with consumer vernacular (Gartman 1998: 134) that yielded widely differentiated meaning effects that speak both to theoretically informed cognoscenti and to entertainment-seeking masses the illusionistic effect of which bespeaks ironic play with style, representation, and difference (Baudrillard 1994: 43-44).
The concept of postmodernism registers important cultural changes occurring in connection to economic transitions from Fordist mode of accumulation to post-Fordist mode of regulation that need to be put in comparative and empirical context to account for diverse cultural developments that are interactively embedded in particular social structures the specific configurations of which give rise to different cultural responses dependent on their respective structural position that are yet to receive adequate reflection in theorization of dialectical relationship between culture and economy (Gartman 1998: 135). The movement from the macro descriptions by Jameson and Harvey of the relationship between postmodernism and post-Fordism has to pass through more detailed specification of the connection that micro processes have with the particular social structures within which they take place that Munch's (1981; 1982) reformulation of structural functionalism in terms that take into account regional and historical specificities offers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
