Thornton et al
what is new institutionalism?
how to institutions (formal/informal rules) shape organizational structures
swidler analyzes and emphasizes the importance of...
culture
how is identity created/understood?
through the categorization of actions and behaviors and beliefs
what is foucault? (theoretically)
a post structuralist!
what is habitus and field?
what is institutional isomorphism, and how does it relate to legitimacy and loose coupling?
institutions become similar over time to gain legitimacy, but sometimes inward facing structures don't reflect outward facing structures
what are cultural repertoires and how are they used?
a vast "toolbox" of cultural responses and understanding of situations that we use to react to situations and problems
relate identity to social collectivities
people's identity is based on groupings -> social collectivities, so peoples understanding of themselves and of groups tend to be similar to others in that group
what does discipline do to the body?
makes it docile but more economically productive, so it can do more but it's actions are more constrained
what are habitus and field representing...
institutions... kinda. it's somewhat a dialectical relationship, at least field of struggle, which can be related to berger and luckmann
how are institutions important in their analysis?
very important because they are what shapes organizations and behavior, they are seen as overarching backbone
very functionalist in this way --> but its called institutional logics bc it does differ
how do cultural repertoires/strategies of action shift over settled vs. unsettled times?
settled -> more automatic, "cultural cognitive"
unsettled -> culture becomes more decisive, almost more normative
it shapes groupings, organization of our social world, creates futures
think about the example of the racial story
what does foucault have to say about power and knowledge
they can't be separated, knowledge is formed and controlled through power, knowledge is not an equalizer or something that "challenges" power
slavery is described as what by patterson
highly symbolic... the system is tied to honor heavily and the symbol of ownership
how do these theorist move away from structural functionalism?
institutional logics is functionalist insofar as it emphasizes and analyzes instutions, but it also looks at how organizations and people act within this and how they create change
more agency almost given to people/orgs
describe disciplinary power and how this relates to the panopticon
autonomous, continuous, subtle, self-inflicted
panopticon means the person is always being watched (or could be)
how does social death relate to power?
in a society where slavery is a fundamental institution, social death is experienced by those who are enslaved because they lose connection to their history and legal power
how does the concept of partial autonomy build on or differ from other theorists?
douglas emphasizes autonomy (institutions think for us but we make decisions within this framework)
most of the theorists share this view that we make choices but those choices are confined
berger and luckmann present autonomy as dialectical which is kinda different -> emphasis on institutions shape how we make choices and our choices shape the social world
all refer to reflecting on socially constructed ideas
cultural coherence is seen as somewhat impossible/created by ones self
reification is viewed by berger and luckmann as something people MUST do, where reflexivity is more neutral
an examined life is similarly somewhat "better" or at least more coherent than an unexamined life
how does hayward's theorization of institutionalized stories compare to other theorists?
institutionalized stories are far more important than ordinary stories because they shape how we interpret these stories -> so institutions are very important
compared to thornton, there is less emphasis on individual change, and more to how stories are shaped by broad understandings
how is foucault's analysis of power different from other theorists?
other theorists look at institutions as drivers, instead foucault looks at how power shapes institutions
other theorists aren't really naming power or describing HOW it is enacted