Foundations of a theory of social forms

Abstract

Sociologists frequently invoke the concept of form when analyzing organizations, collective action, art, music, culture and other phenomena. Nonetheless, the form concept has not received careful theoretical analysis, either generally or in specific context. Using the tools of formal logic, set theory, and algebra, we propose a language for defining social forms that is suAEciently general to incorporate feature-based, position-based, and boundary-based approaches to defining forms. We focus on organizational forms although we intend for our conceptualization to be general. We define forms as a type of socially coded identity. We de_ne identity in terms of social codes that specify the properties that an entity can legitimately possess. These codes can be enforced by insiders or outsiders. We claim that one knows that a social code exists when one observes that departures from the codes after periods of conformity cause a devaluation of the entity by relevant insiders and/or outsiders. This construction allows us to de_ne a population as the set of entities with a common minimal external identity in a bounded system in period. The minimal property ensures that we localize to the most speci_c socially enforced identities. The reliance on identities instead of forms allows us to de_ne populations that never achieve form status and to extend population de_nitions back to the period of early legitimation. Research design implications follow.

A Cultural Quest: A Study of Organizational Use of New Cultural Resources in Strategy Formation

“…Whereas extant research on market categories emphasizes their constraining effects (Pólos et al 2002;Zuckerman 1999;Zuckerman et al 2003), our model underscores the organizational agency in asserting a distinctive identity by using categories from different registers and combining them in claims of distinctiveness. Our model therefore suggests identity redefinition as an important mechanism through which organizations may manage the "categorical imperative (Zuckerman 1999).…”

“…These claims were based on categories referring to established and legitimated organizational forms in the registers from which Alessi was incorporating cultural resources enabling it to claim similarity to such forms. Indeed, social categories provide institutionalized frameworks that capture collective understandings regarding the typical "capabilities, products, and attributes" of member-organizations (Porac et al 1999, p. 112), and features and imperatives of action to which organizations are expected to conform (Pólos et al 2002;Zuckerman 1999). Accordingly, an organization can claim legitimacy for strategies of action that, while dissimilar from those conventionally followed by members of its industry, bear similarities with those of members of other categories (e.g.…”

“…Describing Alessi as a publisher or a workshop did not suggest a radical change in what the organization did (producing household products in metal), but encouraged a more refined understanding of how it did it. The fact that most of the claims were used somewhat figuratively, rather than literally, enabled Alessi to transfer meanings associated with different forms without having to conform precisely to the templates and procedures that constituted them (Pólos et al 2002). The multiplicity of identity claims may have provided it with a latitude based on less fixed audience expectations to implement the multiplicity of new strategies that its enriched cultural repertoire enabled.…”

Robust Identities or Nonentities? Typecasting in the Feature‐Film Labor Market

“…As Zuckerman points out (1999Zuckerman points out ( : 1403, common to such different perspectives as neoinstitutionalism (Meyer and Rowan 1977;DiMaggio and Powell 1983;Scott 2001), White's market model (White 2002), and marketing theory (e.g., Bronnenberg and Vanhonacker 1996;Urban, Hulland, and Weinberg 1993) is the assumption that actors face pressure to demonstrate adherence to the forms, roles, or categories that guide valuation. 2 Each of these theories implies that an actor who defies prevailing socio-cognitive frames risks sowing confusion among relevant audiences, thereby producing social penalties in the form of disattention or outright rejection (Zuckerman 1999; see also Polos, Hannan, and Carroll 2002). As a result, actors are pressured to conform in a way that may be purely symbolic (Meyer and Rowan 1977) but may include substantive change as well (e.g., Zuckerman 2000).…”

The comparative analysis of organizational forms: Considering field and ecological approaches

“…More recent theoretical developments in organizational ecology (e.g., Hannan, Po´los, & Carroll, 2007) have brought a renewed concern with the development of a more rigorous conceptualization of organizational forms in particular and ''social forms'' in general (Hannan et al, 2002). These newly reformulated theoretical strands are also distinctive in focusing on the dynamics of origin and transformation of the ''social codes'' that define those forms.…”