Situational Orders: Interaction Patterns and the Standards for Evaluating Public Discourse

IF 4.1 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Oded Marom
{"title":"Situational Orders: Interaction Patterns and the Standards for Evaluating Public Discourse","authors":"Oded Marom","doi":"10.1177/07352751231218479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do civic groups judge what issues are appropriate for public discourse? And how do they know what kinds of arguments to use where? Cultural sociologists identify varying “orders of worth,” that is, historically defined systems of typification and evaluation people draw on to evaluate public arguments. Yet it remains unclear how these take form in ongoing group practices. This article theorizes how groups’ ongoing interaction patterns, or “style,” typify social scenes to steer members toward distinct orders of worth in varying situations. As I argue, different typifications of public and private scenes condition the type of arguments members deem appropriate for public discourse, with meaningful implications for their politics. Combining style and orders of worth allows us to ask how ostensibly similar groups may publicly define different political goals and value varying forms of civic engagement. I illustrate this theoretical framework with an ethnographic study of two culturally distinct groups of libertarians in the United States.","PeriodicalId":48131,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Theory","volume":" July","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07352751231218479","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do civic groups judge what issues are appropriate for public discourse? And how do they know what kinds of arguments to use where? Cultural sociologists identify varying “orders of worth,” that is, historically defined systems of typification and evaluation people draw on to evaluate public arguments. Yet it remains unclear how these take form in ongoing group practices. This article theorizes how groups’ ongoing interaction patterns, or “style,” typify social scenes to steer members toward distinct orders of worth in varying situations. As I argue, different typifications of public and private scenes condition the type of arguments members deem appropriate for public discourse, with meaningful implications for their politics. Combining style and orders of worth allows us to ask how ostensibly similar groups may publicly define different political goals and value varying forms of civic engagement. I illustrate this theoretical framework with an ethnographic study of two culturally distinct groups of libertarians in the United States.
情境秩序:互动模式与公共话语评价标准
公民团体如何判断哪些问题适合公开讨论?他们又是如何知道在什么场合使用什么样的论据?文化社会学家发现了不同的 "价值秩序",即历史上确定的类型化和评价体系,人们据此来评估公共论点。然而,人们仍不清楚这些体系是如何在当前的群体实践中形成的。本文从理论上探讨了群体的持续互动模式(或称 "风格")如何将社会场景类型化,从而在不同情况下引导成员形成不同的价值等级。正如我所论证的,公共和私人场景的不同类型化决定了成员们认为适合公开讨论的论点类型,并对他们的政治产生了有意义的影响。将风格和价值秩序结合起来,我们就能探究表面上相似的群体是如何公开定义不同的政治目标并重视不同形式的公民参与的。我通过对美国两个文化背景不同的自由主义者群体的人种学研究来说明这一理论框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sociological Theory
Sociological Theory SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.80%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Published for the American Sociological Association, this important journal covers the full range of sociological theory - from ethnomethodology to world systems analysis, from commentaries on the classics to the latest cutting-edge ideas, and from re-examinations of neglected theorists to metatheoretical inquiries. Its themes and contributions are interdisciplinary, its orientation pluralistic, its pages open to commentary and debate. Renowned for publishing the best international research and scholarship, Sociological Theory is essential reading for sociologists and social theorists alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信