Culture in Social Theory

Culture in Social Theory G reg B eckett reasons M arx and M arxism im portant of 'culture' The concept social theory conceived in of as anthropology culture general the in 'is' rem ains culture is not a 'thing' w hich W illiam s and m ediates betw een categories such as that w hat then, in the into one discourse, a process B ourdieu, G iddens, the cultural can be seen all social as the engage som e of culture of the the various etc.) and to suggest analysis, role that anthropology theoretical can play in relation analysis of cultures, social system s and social actors. If it is the general is alw ays duality betw een attem pt to that attem pt subjects theorize m ediates betw een dom ains m ust and culture these social to first attem pt a then process seem ingly to m ove determ inism w hich preferences over the other. To begin is that subjects separable. and in w ith objects, as tw o theory deal the th of has been w ith, the first suggestion objects are only analytically base B rum aire rests, but they do This this notion of M arxist and by circum stances directly encountered, transm itted from the past. (1869: given For M arx, the m aterial cultural and have separable W illiam s and 15) and the ideational (the and w ay coim ected philosophers people think in specific linked historical the realm act) are of ideas aspects intim ately realizations. O ther and separable a from O f course, in analysis, the connections form s becom e and social reified categories. into A gainst argues for a reevaluation ... W e have to revalue setting this, of all the content. We realm of 'the real' before M arx, but for a variety of have practices, dependent content. of technological A nd, 'the a fixed a revalue aw ay range of from a specifically crucially, base' aw ay abstraction, specific activities to or the from controlled a related and reproduced and aw ay and tow ards reflected, notion lim its and prefigured have to revalue 'determ ination' of predicted, 'superstructure' of society (the m ode of production) and is that the as, over tim e, ideas of a base superstructure cultural aspects cultural base m ulti-directional groups, are m issed, R aym ond a cultural of pressure, under a D eterm inism of society. exertion but of superstructure dem onstrates m ake them selves, the production notion is only analytically conditions social distinct of successfully the chosen an from and specific 1977: 75). tow ards circum stances of determ ined the on w hich and m ode still Thus, (classes) not m ake it just as they please; they do not it under it links dom ains, the base a is a that, though three term s: w rote the fam ous lines: M en m ake their ow n history, and (W illiam s realm sort a by have m aterialism by m any (at least until the latter half of indissoluble, and becom es m ode m ay production. consciousness. w hat system s of social groups superstructure dom ain one of social held to be the key of M arxist analyses betw een M arx ideational engendered determ ining any form elem ents of the capitalist superstructure specific this his and social actors (as though m ode system relations aside, of starting betw een his historical and the cultural com e 'things') H ow ever, m aterial entire m ediation m ode of analysis preferences cultural the the otherw ise, the m aterial This can be traced back at least to M arx, w ho in the 18 the because such a salient and his critique any beyond precisely groups) can be seen in M arx's historical that separate duality itself, and then attem pt to rem ove of of this century) case an subjective form s a is system s (as objective econom ic so as to define the key elem ents in any social it in the last half of this In fact, m any of the prom inent determ inistic of this (or practice, point. have been particularly theory that he provides a theorization argued subjective purpose and im portance m aterialism tw o - century, of production. process theory and The is to to a general Indeed, I suggest, dom ains. analyses at issue w hat lives. (m ateriaV structural) (ideationaV social) specific live their others, essential paper, and exactly at all, but rather people theorists theoretical be in social theory seem s to be that follow ing objective also sciences) but problem atic. consensus to both can hum an particular, general through is central (w hich in social from econom ic and tow ards we the or the of m en in real social and econom ic relationships, containing another previously, contradictions and variations theories of and therefore alw ays in a state of dynam ic process. (W illiam s 1980: 34). G iddens proposes, fundam ental the social So, the notion of determ inism a (of uni-directional the base over superstructure) is untenable in a cultural but the idea of determ ination, w hich the idea that history', social groups is still necessary. to rem ain qualifies determ ination 'm ake A llow ing m ove is the setting that the conflation social groups and production Instead, w hich sets betw een dom ains of action w hole hum an m atrix objective/m aterial and the they (1977) expresses term s includes relations in w hich experience of a their that exist, as the have term s but reality the by different of w hat all m ean. structuration, be have tended for culture, now , som e of the The G iddens' central theory to be and of and 'structure', collapsed into related This (though is close it clearly of the m eans and needs and space are the in social illustrates the system s" is im portant the necessity discussion That is, structures as provide m ood in any form s to w hich can it both w hich of of social are to be thought or historical realizations of of a on tim e and the historical of social system s of M arx, and structures w hose of production m aterial w orking on m aintained w as precisely or changed theorizing about the one how of agency In recent the that som ething I suggest agency seen a close to individual, building actors has of social use of that action. 1979: should 55-56). flow rather doing. Second, a that though it (that is, subject to fully - have acted otherw ise B eyond this, how ever, process. engaged than it is som ething be conceived and em ergent are continuously the This points. First, action is Thus, alw ays to w ay to view action is never determ ined could it com e autonom ous on G iddens' as a continuous are alw ays of discourse, of agency that the proper determ inations), specific m ust include concept list of events. (G iddens the system s. w ith a discussion m ay be m ore or less constrained action are for of social anthropological is as a theory social beings social In w as system s m echanism any such discussion structures). discrete that G iddens of agency and action (and in fact it m ust unite a discussion to be of historical. over tim e - that is, he w as or transform ation For G iddens, is again analysis w as explicitly itself entails several specific I that the first tw o ideas that are 'system ' m odes term m ost culture Thus, system s in tim e and space. progressive specificity rem iniscent w ord, w ith here is based on structure, and The of is better conceptualized This em phasis m ean unproblem atic, theorists. system , it seem s for form ation and as they tend to be used Follow ing need to be rew orked as these seem that I am concerned ideas agency m ay to define, differently problem of tim e 64). tem poral w ithin betw een m yself they "binding (1979: set to this, social structures properties" seem s U ntil that structure real that m ediates to be reform ulated. in term s "structuring as dom ains of of a social system action. H ow ever, a place the ideas. For G iddens, discussion 327). and subjective and the process w ords but betw een sets production reproduction of not as a lim its all need in of act. elaborate let these H all com plex. (1977: that fact, one of the central problem s is the "structured determ inism , the ideas of the objective difficult Stuart determ inations" To further them through m ust be rethought w hich against w hich social agents' of society, live this is to be thought m echanistic constraints people for H all on this point is the of determ inacy, or by a w ay. For him , the form ation sum of the different final lives. the social system . the structure-superstructure A s w ith W illiam s, of structures. though processes the organizes. logical be understood as em ergent both relations another W hat is m ost im portant principle w hich as contradictory) em bodim ent here, a separable as constituted w hich base-superstructure for In reality, societies this of view ed as M arx's notion of a m ode of production, for such a view , w e m ust subjective/ideational w hich in seem ingly or practice. the of society. allow s as the process these there is no -ism nam ed conceptualize from the conditions M arxism of m ode as 1979: relationships creates. In contrast that dom ain (econom ic) of culture m ediates is one consciousness the a re-form ulated conceptualization here exist relations 1977: 85). be that the system som etim es only or action; (W illiam s m ade their of ow n determ ination of the subjective dom ain only to of lim its or constraints is being resists objective their the idea of agency on the action of social groups The analysis, is linked W hat is tbat specific elem ents functionalist 61). principles, engender the in and w hat I also suggest, system organizing m echanical especially (G iddens society of as a historically Thus, social actors in acting. B ut how For M arx, actors'? never separable w hich they here we take for any particular For by their exam ple, fragm entation im portant class-based M arx's prim arily position. them selves tim e, they do so in relation up that are relevant are reproduce w ith social w ithin in particular that groups analysis are not (econom ic) class it could a to analysis for it m ay be that the social class be the position situations, or ethnic that is som ething B ut how does a notion reproduction social The groups structures either or general of social the question interactIng over tim e reproduce or be exam ined discussion m ore closely m ode of production engenders of social of concerned w ith the contradiction of capital social and private uniquely general sense, distinct, and dialectical nature schem e m ovem ent through placed the another that real conditions a the system of production only a new m ode relations). dialectical social G iddens or w ithin how any such contradictions they can be concealed, ideology and of is, there w ithin any a space capitalist concealm ent for the nature can m anifest, relation and m aterial production. or how a discussion betw een of social and the of the conditions. That is, w ith the social cannot w hat functional and ideology, To understand system m aintain anthropology that betw een of social the role that ideology G erm an the such, from or the m ode aspects "production of (M arx his the 'real' conditions of production. of There interw oven and the m aterial & Engels and of 1947: intercourse 47). are says that conceptions, m akes the nature of this connection says that: historical here. First, M arx ideas, in m eant the m aterial is at first directly the m aterial activity idealism of consciousness by w hich he of course consciousness, m en" As had the creation follow ing that M arx against H egelian philosophy. plays, to understand how M arx used the term . First, realize arguing ideas and pow er. and exactly w hat it is, it is necessary w as explicitly the continued system s w ill thus have to be based on certain of consciousness, conditions of be system s of social tw o im portant of social reproduction - system , reproduction engaged an objective/m aterial social the then, provides groups dom ain of set w hich w hich w ould it and labour. transform ation, 'real' for and pow er. can only depend the of to successfully - the labour of the connections society, presence tw o classes of capital social the (despite this necessitates is betw een says). A ny theorization of ideas conceptualization becom es by the ruling class, of these m aterial reproduce new brings the precise interests m ode w hich the propositional because to of B ut in a m ore form ed, of the capitalist m aterialism is not enough a basis for a theory production That the w hich system ). m ust sell their for of (and thus establish H ow ever, and transform ation, m ode and others have m aintained contradictory up a system provide society H is involved one contradiction production, system s. contradictions m akes of itself. w ho possibility of production, from that w ill provide one group to transform in system s. w hich m odes of change attribute contradiction only social actors w as interested social (the ow nership class-consciousness, system . m ost the idea w ho ow n the m eans of production engine becom es of the w as and the idea of labour (as historically of the contradictory aw areness w e can begin societies, different engine w ithin of for exists som e irreconcilable m ode the an for M arx) betw een property in a capitalist them selves generative system production, hum an com m odified w ill m ight w ork needs to M arx of the m eans of production) The through that the m aterial M arx m ode can H egel, (the social actors classes, (H all 1977: 315). In his critique capitalist a the social living) of this system of w here culture fits in. In this regard, it Follow ing of concealm ent, w ill again prove helpful to begin w ith M arx. the m odes w ith social structures on the successful of a system ) before - specifically, (their consciousness, The m aintenance w ith transform how such a process fram ew ork, and of the m aterial groups is that the process (as the em bodim ents Precisely subjective form s of the nature transform ation idea M arxist linked the proletariat acting help us to answ er system s? and engagem ent bourgeoisie else altogether. of the strict of social existence for to suggest a in or groups, In reproduction of or unit agents as social This is not, how ever, exclusively, defined social do act and engage through other actors. the notion category w ay, be read individuals structures his prim ary In a sim ilar should Thus, enm eshed. becam e of analysis. though from the general social relations w ere social classes actors should w e think of 'social individual hum an actors w ere Second, of w ith of he clear w hen he M en are the as they are conditioned developm ent of process. just by is their If in all ideology appear obscura, as m uch process this from does process. definite forces ... the actual life- m en and their as in a phenom enon their from else and upside-dow n as the inversion retina a existence, m en circum stances cam era their can never be anything conscious existence of of their productive C onsciousness than producers ideas, etc. - real, active m en, conceptions, arises historical life- of objects their on the physical life- hegem ony as a total principle that itself can alternatives, hegem onies, for w ithout transform ation and change for. The fundam ental m ake m ore it and social hegem ony m ust m aintained social system s and cannot be accounted of hegem ony than be ideology, secured and and that that constantly of one hegem onic counter-hegem ony), that are over tim e (i.e. transform ation by the replacem ent This determ ining aspects useful integrating order. in relation to called counter- this, com pletely m aintained (1947: 47) the only m ake sense or w hat G ram sci becom e a orgam zm g naturalizes can occur system it w ith cannot be only by a ruling class, but in fact m ust be accepted and internalized by other social groups (H all 1977: 333). C onsciousness m aterial H ere conditions M arx theory, com es though how ever, naturalizes obscured subjective, to form ulating not crucial ideology. form ed ideas conditions though, the 'real' concealed theory a society obfuscates as structural W hat a social structures it is the dom ain Thus, it is that are ideology ideology a discourses Social etc.) w ith becom es system s, propositions are both expressed in ideologies both specific relations w ould expose relations this cultural serve to of for Perhaps ideology over another difference and are alw ays m edium s 1979: 91). Social practices, or cultural, through of an actor dom ination the social involves com pletely to by is both The uses of resources, for pow er (G iddens w ays of living, action of nam ing the process w hich social groups use resources m aintain action are all w ays a that dom ination. lies in the differential system pow er, to either or transform and pow er it. A ll is never held by one group over another: class ... Pow er relations autonom y in m ost autonom ous dependent, and sets of are relations of but even and dependence, autonom y. the agent is in som e degree and the m ost dependent in a relationship (G iddens retains actor som e 1979: 93) society, and these R uling groups the m ore is G ram sci's H ere G iddens w ill be contradictions w ere I suggest - that is, pow er capacity as organize integrate M arx ability or party dom ain. and to conceal w hat one group of to and their relation either are engaged. and contradiction the of production. use of and action, the If betw een directly G iddens, be dom ain. then a discussion leads Follow ing transform ative political and contradictory, of integration best be practices actors that of em bodied the social relations integrative principles in conceived and can experiential m ediator achieve his or her w ill, or structural of culture, of production, and w hich theory in class. theory of the ruling In a M arxist in to the m ode of the ruling necessitate system pow er as the hegem ony to structures. w hich and specifically (e.g. the m ode institutions, than is is not w hat is of production dom ination over other classes. then, and of culture, any such theory structural categories, of pow er is a set pow er, and pow er for M arx should perhaps seen these tw o analytic discussion available. w ill be the ideology is to be placed ideology and in fact the dom inant conceptualization culture the the objective, and that consciousness to conjoin w ith ideology but rather are linked of production, This is dom ain and arises out of (H all 1977: 325). B ut both M arxist betw een of existence. conditions does, C onsciousness is that ideology or concealed, a cultural it. H e distinction of ideas that are m ost openly only pursue live. In contrast, the im portant, a theory w ill need and of historically A s w e m ove tow ards the close by life; it is practical the w ay people by m eans a consciousness determ ined then, the above discussion he does m ake determ ined is in w hich people live their lives. in that 'real' satisfying use of for a social leaves theory the necessary that reproduction and transform ation. to about theorize consciousness. several different the nature deals w ith space both The next step is of G iddens distinguishes degrees of conscious action and betw een action: 1) consciousness, their intentions w hich enables discursively. 2) consciousness, practical know ledge not that actors is form ulation is the (w ants 57 -58). analytic concept w hich B ourdieu brings out here is tacit ... durably but w hich they do and 3) of realm of produces discursively, 1979: express w hich w hich m otivations (G iddens to his notion of habitus, w hich is the possess, form ulate unconsciousness, unexam ined actors and This of the w ide dom ain installed regulated practices reproduce desires) conditions their generative of consciousness principle [w hich] w hich the regularities objective m ulti-leveled generative im provisations, tend im m anent to in the of the production of principles ... (1972: 78) further opens up a space for action in social theory, because it conscious, rem oves in opposition proletariat false that em erges aw areness this conscious intended line to if the action tow ards a specific consequences w hich or desire, outcom es aw are action (G iddens the basis for further do not only act, G iddens' his notion also theory com m itted dialectical relation subjective dom ains, reproduction (B ourdieu to and the social to the provides system if w e m ove and w hich of of of practical consciousness, in the rules w hich to nevertheless social actors, are the conditions system ) determ ined producers by their m akes the (re)producers agents are a variety to socialization, natural rather w hich of explicit social pow er of that ow n (and us of identities form ation. of the in part The key (B ourdieu As to m aintain w ith a space certain identities constraints to talk specifically, talk and about w hat the those the necessary of action, pow er and tow ards and, m ore im portantly, they m ight do w ithin such constraints. the area w hich B ourdieu's specifically concept, a of how , exactly, people are both form ed by those constraints, G iddens theory his notion as a single w hat This is, I m eant to capture of practice, of habitus, circle back to discussions together, to aw ay from discussions determ ined discussion alternatives in w hich M ore this historical analytic us w ith a space and identity. is sim ilar though m ight m ean. This provides m ovem ent and exist. provides of the are In as lies in the degree to w hich to that appears or historical an said in processes. habitus, social order, and the degree it provides thus differs can be the in w hich of as internalized arbitrary w ith his notion of 'agency'. actions it operates an believe, their through learning the social reproducers system but the difference naturalization form ation they of social than in that by social agents, 1972: 78). A s such, the notion of habitus the and w hich seem to This is, in part, and culture though contrast about subjectivity is the and is usually conceived through and B ourdieu both idea of socialization, produced, socialization a and agents it is based on the internalization, of social the habitus social system of that system . sim ilar to the general social and or social specific w hich reproduce of society because that 17). For B ourdieu, guide the sorts of practices objective but is conditions w hich created of a historically habitus are not discursively seem to reproduce, over tim e (1972: practice product is by social actors 1972: 3). A s is the case for G iddens available a of culture, theory interested social Of objective a his notion agents did not establishm ent to of the social on of production structures of practice, betw een by the habitus those of a social consciousness the determ ined precisely m edium react a theory practical to B ourdieu's be to hegem ony, to place of of practices to of the principles have action, because theory of structuration in w hich product m eant m ay them selves but this itself m ight be m ore attainable system s so in w hich they live. fram ew ork likew ise the 59). m ay they the action or practice of social agents in a w ay they them selves are unaw are of. M ore than that, the is directed 1979: outcom es groups action m akes of action, the actors them selves becom e from society betw een of social actors unintentional conditions can and of w hich they m ay not even consciously course, of historical and it constrains in the first place (1972: 79). It is thus the constraint we reproducing that actors, principles distinguish end, is the effect on social than they m ay be m ore or less and unintended that even be is That is, habitus determ inations but not under of. The final m ove that G iddens this intend in w hich action choosing, actors w hich levels of live. So, if M arxism m ake history, ow n to social under conditions theories. of differential people of of the in m any M arxist says that social actors of their notion of a ruling class of the social conditions conditions along rigid consciousness for a range and in w hich extend m ore dom ination to the It also allow s occurs, the ideological and m ore brings us full of naturalization. Taken discourse on the processes through w hich M arx, (and the R aym ond system s reproduce them selves, later cultural M arxists such as W illiam s G iddens and and B ourdieu overlap and converge. of cultural the include H all), W hatever process the various have outlined: Stuart all provide processes be, it seem s that these determ ination, and counter-hegem ony, action, pow er, practice. So, if social system s dialectical in a double dialectical relation contradictory theorists hegem ony habitus agents and internally that the process this dialectical relationship com plex and relational. That is, the processes view ed as a set potential and social that m ust itself be system s of disjunctions, that can be as a series ( ... or. ..or. .. or. .. or). w hich series, 'culture', groups groups processes disjunctive and are to be seen as m ediates social to I suggest of This we call is then a list of the w ays in w hich social are form ed by system s w hich system s are social groups. The form ations cannot naturalization produced and the particular aspects be theorized but rather m ust be exam ined w ays and reproduced of in by these in a general sense, historically. and internalization of the class, and transform ation preferencing of R aym ond defined that W illiam s determ ined by B eyond these realm on paper is m ark the bounds rough m ight culture can exist. The first m ove m ust be to locate culture betw een social system s. entire relationship system s is separation betw een of the subjective only an analytic provide successful society, the through tim e. above, a variety For M arx, ideological and B ourdieu's of structures consciousness adequate than either the abstract habitus. theorization M arx theory of practice provide an added order is naturalized or society of G iddens reproduction of is based the true of dim ension on (class-consciousness). EJ the m aterial w hat dom ains connection of of the groups. achieved over on class the and attainm ent of conditions of G ram sci, becom es does question system s, based For culture?' that be ruling B ourdieu's of the habitus in w hich or w ithout m aintenance of culture the social social The betw een groups through transform answ er social illustrated to a of 'w hat is and the and hegem ony. w ay: social w hich processes or is bounded unconsciousness, action, It em erges a theory second reproduce 'C ulture' habitus, in the follow ing and through either of consciousness, such this of processes groups groups consciousness, sense, to processes of these separate conceptualizations sim plest contribute as a totality the social system . determ ination to and durable). theories form ed, social by the totality practical the are w hich the need of categories if the question is that culture, provides of a (as in 'how does culture do things and it do?' m ediate a and pow er w ithout overt im plications constant social theory the happening is a provides and his notion A ll of the above and conditions only processes if the if by social can propositions of action G ram sci, and use of ideology), the a em ergence to the realm of action, practical and m ore of they provide the historical that em body of a social system and or culture), form ulations from of processes of w hat social hegem ony range and of the nature this and and G iddens the social system s dom ination transform ation aw areness and as theories of social discussed for the Taken together, cultures and objective one. M arx theories m aterial as w ell reproduction As groups, historically, rem ains betw een groups B ut this can only be done analyzed conditions ruling class that seeks such a naturalization w ithin w hich a theory of of social itself, process definitions m ediate social reproduction. to do so far in this the dom ain culture and m aterial (for the habitus is both 'built-in' sought the discourse. historical (ideology, w e have G iddens' M arx's I have through 1977: 138). of processes m aterial focuses social is sorts is achieved a counter-hegem onic as the w hole (W illiam s consider W hat existent social order by all social groups, not just the ruling sense - that is, as both in a to social - then I suggest conjoin that the precise nature m ight ideology, G ram sci, theories reproduction occurs through the hegem onic dom ination of society, w hich itself necessitates the. ideology, w here all overlap. of culture In the can be If I have at least succeeded the lim its in w hich purposes the w e can place of analysis proposed above one another), then necessary culture to consider cannot it the possible we w ould production M arx w as of the of need that people production, about as and G ram sci engage to historic O thers, how ever, M argaret A rcher, outlines a theory dom ain of suggestion of social theory historical successful C onsider can how A rcher, specific betw een cultural the groups. The analysis she structure links (1988: dom ains. This any tim e deciphered, understood som eone... By intelligibilia form expressed (A rcher a C ultural System of being or definition grasped, know n the a system , by cultural for all item s in a com m on language ... 1988: 104) is concerned, 'culture', system s I) the 2) the problem lack w ith w hich of theorization of the conflation and social groups, the conflation of cultural and structural she argues against econom ic base) .and' social A 'rcher groups goes (as in H egelian further by suggesting of analyses. the preferencing social system or a determ ining of of social and 3) the problem Like G iddens, of either a determ ining A rcher to and system w rite betw een (as in M arx's realm of ideas idealism ). that B ut G iddens' a betw een our is w ay analysis do not outw eigh affords stated conceived at approaches structuralist itself rather and analyses of culture, culture sense if up A rcher w hich fram es. join through In best a to one, quasi- does, though generally approached historicaV ethnographic is betw een than processual it that System atic it). The specific cannot be theorized in A rcher's as a system . actors. offer (w hich she also argues against about the dam ages of culture social to culture, culture system s, that beginning, and the especially of as the process of m ediation system processes from of talking advantages the it of of a cultural or The for (how categories doom ed theory, is that it does analytic 'system s') social culture program First, a conceptualization in social influences influences w hat the Specifically, general does it. about the culture anthropology. m ake constitute like to suggest is not a successful culture reify by suggesting w hich structure how culture 'agents' I is cultural instead to attem pt to how m ay be done by conceiving problem s are: how attem pt beginning. As The central exam ine and m ediates capable is im portant a general relations 285). W hat I w ould precisely of culture: in of culture system atic to are in general system and the social system . w ants the of w hich left the idea of culture of processes and to subsequent on the other hand, is theorizing and A gency, illustrate of course m ust rest on a definition are that I think I have deliberately the m ultiplicity connected (both is it to theorize only m ark the boundaries and structural ... A t any given agenda of of such processes. M arxism ), its in social theory in the production system ?' social this itself is is and vague in this paper, preferring social that is ... all things that self-critic a connection and 'how m otor' structuralist of H ow ever, form ation The question of to w hich and a derivative in in her book C ulture the cultural preference in anthropology. anthropology's system s. lies disagree. for culture to som e not accounts culture that is dom ain reproduction or social of the on contribution is that there is also a system ic available betw een an em phasis the but rather and particular tendency the latter half of this century). social sense, an done by the consciousness 1988: 282). A gain, there does seem (usually m aterial w ell paper, analysis cultural direct or indirect) that the general a especially such as the or 'm oral' I of 'culture', be analysis in this the social system as the 'hidden generates relations in and practical structuralist groups (A rcher to is a point up w ith the dam age of action to changes in the reproduction anthropology etc. 'base' taken w ay). M ore than this, though, is concerned preferences he lacks a specific This itself been essentially that of 'political' im plicated theorization social an of connected As suggest of culture. it has reduction dom ain dom ain because taken (and objective subjective For m ost, it is prim arily have placed of production. such, or the M arx, theorists the use of pow er (w hether for m eans 'real' the theorization A rcher action, the from though in a different seem econom ic the they and follow ing the sociality his conflates separated This about system s be of reproduction system . talk of w ays in w hich hegem ony, realized im portantly betw een G iddens to identities, him self m ost social itself social social agents precisely for the or transform ed, this itself w ould be the process that be w ould itself is either produced transform ation culture (for in reality, the elem ents m odel from in bounding theory this m ediatory agents and - they only particular sense, the form ulation outlined here (w hich follow s from the theories of M arx, G iddens and B ourdieu) is m ore successful for anthropology as it does any claim s as to the form that cultural w ill take m otor' or how they w hich A rcher w ill operate. not be the experience, dom ain researcher These experience, ethnographic specific and for analyses 'data' in agents analysis preferences the is and over a are perhaps intentions nature of of the anthropology, at to em erge is a blessing, for it that can and have social of the specific and the space of a herm eneutic by-products fieldw ork least, dom ain one). 'hidden as she suggests, structural pushing structuralist the the (that is, anthropologists preferenced preferenced necessary The points out does exist, but this in itself is not as problem atic need not m ake processes fron1 the not a curse. A rcher, M argaret 1988. Culture and Agency. C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press. 1972. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by R ichard N ice. B ourdieu, Pierre C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. London: The M acm illan G iddens, A nthony Press Lim ited. M arx, K arl 1869 [1998]. Bonaparte. The I8th Brumaire of Louis N ew Y ork: International Publishers. M arx, K arl and Frederick Engels 1947 [1996]. German Ideology. N ew Y ork: International The Publishers. H all, Stuart 1977. "C ulture, M edia and the 'Ideological Effect'." In Mass Communication and Society. J C urran et aI, (eds.). pp. 315-348. London: Edw ard A rnold. W illiam s, R aym ond 1977. Marxism and Literature. O xford: O xford U niversity Press. W illiam s, R aym ond 1980. "B ase and Superstructure in M arxist C ultural Theory." In... Problems in Materialism London: V erso. and Culture. pp. 31-49.