Money, Love, and Sacredness: Generalised Symbolic Media and the Production of Instrumental, Affectual, and Moral Reality

Abstract

A central and long-standing theoretical problem in sociology concerns how differentiated social units are integrated. This problem, however, has been peripheralised since the decline of functionalism, while legitimation and regulation/power-differentials have moved to the forefront. This article argues that by reconceptualising the concept, generalised symbolic media, a robust theory of integration can be posited that does not sacrifi ce the importance of regulation (control) or legitimation (meaning). This paper extends both the Simmelian and functionalist versions of media by: (1) precisely defi ning the concept; (2) examining its two forms-a specialised institutional language and an external referent of value; (3) elucidating the three modes of orientation various media impose; and (4) extending the function of media beyond (social) exchange to include other institutional processes such as communicative action, performance, and ritualised interaction. Ultimately, a reconceptualised theory of generalised symbolic media offers sociology a mechanism that simultaneously highlights the diversity found across institutional spheres, as well as the limits humans have in dealing with the problems posed by differentiation.

Institutional Spheres: The Macro-Structure and Culture of Social Life

“…As noted above (see Table 11.2 ), I have added numerous media to account for the number of autonomous institutional spheres. Like logics, media are vehicles of culture; unlike logics, media "circulate" along the many structural connections, are unevenly distributed like Bourdieuian capital, and are not merely "cognitive" things, but linguistic (themes; texts) (Luhmann 1995 ) and present in physical objects that act as referents of value (Abrutyn 2014b(Abrutyn , 2015b. The latter is a major difference between the functionalist and the institutional logics program, and my own read on institutional spheres.…”

“…The greater is the degree to which each type of differentiation is higher, the greater is the degree to which the institutional sphere will be distinguishable by a signifi cant proportion of the population vis-à-vis other institutions. Put another way, as polity becomes distinct from kinship around 5,000 years ago, the Palace and other public spaces become distinct from kinship buildings in size and scale-and, to some degree, function; public holidays and rituals are likewise distinct from local, familial rituals; kin relations and rela-tions between subject and king become cognitively and materially consequential; and, fi nally, the polity usurps certain symbols that come to signify power and force as opposed to loyalty and love found in the family (Abrutyn 2015b ). Differentiation, however, does not necessarily mean autonomy, as the Palace in Mesopotamian society was often conceptualized as a kinship domain, but one whose function mattered more than the ordinary house-e.g., the king's principal function was to uphold the secular and sacred order (Yoffee 2005 ).…”

“…Media are, in essence, the symbolic and material resources that denote institutional value and which constrain and facilitate feeling, thinking, and doing by acting as both means and ends deemed appropriate. Primarily, media manifest themselves in three ways: as (a) language and, more specifi cally, in the form of themes of discourse (Luhmann 2012 ) as well as the "forms" of actual talk (Abrutyn and Turner 2011 ) governing institutional communication; (b) the normative and cognitive-cultural framework and routines of social exchange-e.g., instrumental vs. moral; and (c) as external referents of value (Abrutyn 2015b ), or the objects that signify to the possessor, user, pursuant, and audience the competence (Goffman 1967 ), authenticity (Alexander 2004 ), and status (Bourdieu 1991 ) institutionally prescribed. Taken together, these three axes allow for the embodiment of the macro-level into daily routines, mundane and ceremonial performances and rituals, and general encounters.…”

“Integrity, Sportsmanship, Character”: Baseball’s Moral Entrepreneurs and the Production and Reproduction of Institutional Autonomy

“…It has long been a sociological assumption that societies vary across time and space in terms of how distinct the major institutional domains or spheres of social life are from each other (Durkheim 1887(Durkheim [1993 ;Weber 1946a;Habermas 1973Habermas [1976; Merton 1979). In particular, this line of thought was fundamental to structural-functional accounts (Parsons and Smelser 1956;Parsons 1971), and continues to inspire theoretical insights on institutions or institutional spheres (Turner 2010;Abrutyn 2009Abrutyn , 2014Turner and Abrutyn 2017), their level of self-reflexivity or autonomy (Luhmann 1995), and the uniqueness of their "logic" (Friedland et al 2014). On the macro-level, the idea that units of analysis like institutional spheres can become (relatively) discrete structural and cultural spaces underscores a fundamental source of societal variation found across time and space, while at the micro level different types of autonomous spheres imply variation in the ways in which actors orient their emotions, attitudes, and behaviors.…”

“…On the macro-level, the idea that units of analysis like institutional spheres can become (relatively) discrete structural and cultural spaces underscores a fundamental source of societal variation found across time and space, while at the micro level different types of autonomous spheres imply variation in the ways in which actors orient their emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. Thus, how institutional spheres become relatively discrete structural and cultural entities matters for understanding how they penetrate the realities of a significant proportion of the population (Abrutyn 2016).…”