Between the critical and the engaged: On the importance of studying symbolic aspects of the reproduction of social order

pages: 407-418


  • Tamara Petrović-Trifunović



Late 20th century developments in social sciences and humanities have placed particular focus on the symbolic aspects of reproduction of social order, stressing the importance of discursive work in the process. It has become widely accepted that discourse is profoundly embedded in society and culture, and hence, closely related also to all forms of power and social inequality. Therefore, it rightfully assumes a central position among the research objects of contemporary social sciences. The aim of this article is to critically examine the impact of the interpretive turn on the study of culture and symbolic registers of society. The analysis focuses on three approaches to the study of discourse, culture and society: critical discourse analysis, Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of culture and Jeffrey Alexander’s strong program in cultural sociology. These approaches are further analyzed according to their position within Burawoy’s division of sociological labor, particularly between critical and public (engaged) sociology. Finally, the author suggests that engagement in detailed reconstructions of discursive manifestations of power, symbolic struggles and/or discursive codes in a society can provide valuable insight that could open up space for social engagement. However, in order to fully grasp the importance of symbolic aspects for the everyday reproduction of social order, the focus of analysis must also be placed on the role cultural traits and practices (understood as a discursive resources like any other) play in constructing stratificational categories, identities and distinctions, masking the very roots of inequalities that created the perceived cultural differences in the first place. Keywords: discourse, culture, symbolic order, interpretive turn, critical sociology, public sociology


Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Philip Smith (2003), “The Strong Program in Cultural Sociology: Elements of a Structural Hermeneutics”, in The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 11–26.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2003), The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2005), “Why Cultural Sociology Is Not ‘Idealist’: A Reply to McLennan”, Theory, Culture & Society 22(6): 19–29.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2007), “The Meaningful Construction of Inequality and the Struggles against It: A ‘Strong Program’ Approach to How Social Boundaries Change”, Cultural Sociology 1(1): 23–30.
Blommaert, Jan (2005), Discourse: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron (1990), Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture [2nd ed.], London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989), “Social space and symbolic power”, Sociological Theory 7(1): 14–25.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000), Pascalian meditations, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Burawoy, Michael (2005), “For public sociology (2004 ASA Presidential Address)”, American Sociological Review 70(1): 4–28.
Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak (1997), “Critical discourse analysis”, in Teun A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies, London: Sage, pp. 258–284.
Gartman, David (2007), “The Strength of Weak Programs”, Theory and Society 36(5): 381–413.
Kurasawa, Fuyuki (2004), “Alexander and the Cultural Refounding of American Sociology”, Thesis Eleven 79: 53–64.
Lamont, Michèle (1992), Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Classes, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Spasić, Ivana (2011), „Politika i značenje: dometi jednog kulturalističkog pogleda na političku sferu“, Sociologija 53(2): 231–238.
Spasić, Ivana (2012), „Debate u sociološkoj teoriji na početku 21. veka“, Godišnjak za sociologiju 9(10-11): 9–32.
Susen, Simon (2011), “Afterword: Concluding Reflections on the Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu”, in Simon Susen and Bryan S. Turner (eds.) The Legacy of Pierre Bourdieu: Critical Essays, London: Anthem Press, pp. 367–409.
Susen, Simon (2015), The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences, Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Swartz, David (1997), Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Swartz, David L. (2003), “From critical sociology to public intellectual: Pierre Bourdieu and politics”, Theory and Society 32(5-6): 791–823.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (2007), “Editor’s introduction. The study of discourse: An introduction”, in Teun A.Van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies, Volume 1, London: Sage, pp. xix–xlii.
Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (2009), “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology”, in Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (Second Edition), London: Sage Publications, pp. 1–33.



How to Cite

Petrović-Trifunović, T. (2016) “Between the critical and the engaged: On the importance of studying symbolic aspects of the reproduction of social order: pages: 407-418”, Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. Belgrade, Serbia, 27(2). doi: 10.2298/FID1602407P.