Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 49, 2023

Review Article

Cultural Objects, Material Culture, and Materiality

 Terence E. McDonnell1 , , Vol. 49:195-220 (Volume publication date July

2023) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-031021-041439

 First published as a Review in Advance on April 26, 2023

ABSTRACT

The study of cultural objects and their materiality has moved to the center of cultural sociology. This
review synthesizes the work of this third wave of cultural sociology, demonstrating how insights from the
study of cultural objects and their mechanisms of meaning-making deepen our theories of culture in
action, culture and cognition, and the production and reception of culture. After placing this third wave
in the historical context of cultural sociology, this review clarifies three concepts: cultural objects,
material culture, and materiality. This review then makes a series of interventions around meaning-
making and action based on insights from scholarship on cultural objects and materiality. First, it
advocates attention to qualities in addition to symbols. Then it examines how object affordances
constrain and enable meaning and use and how objects have material agency. Then the role of cultural
objects in stabilizing and destabilizing meaning and social arrangements is discussed. Finally, cultural
power—whether and how cultural objects shape belief and behavior—is considered through the
orienting concepts of figure and ground.
Keywords
 cultural objects, materiality, material culture, cultural power, culture in action, culture and
cognition, production of culture, reception theory, affordances, stabilization

INTRODUCTION

One cannot account for the effects of culture without understanding cultural objects. Griswold (1986, p.
5) defines cultural objects as “shared significance embodied in form,” meaningful expressions that are
materially perceptible by others. This includes what we usually think of as material objects (e.g., artifacts
in the world like books, tables, or cars) and people's bodily expressions (e.g., a whispered phrase, a hand
gesture, or a wink). As these are all perceptible, they are material. As externalized manifestations of
ideas, cultural objects make it possible to share meaning and therefore culture. I take cultural sociology's
task as explaining the creation and influence of shared meaning and how those meanings shape action.
Unless humans develop telepathic powers, people cannot share meaning without assigning meaning to
cultural objects, making new objects, and circulating them.
Despite this foundational importance of objects, there is a humility to things that leads us to miss their
influence (Miller 2005). Sociological accounts of culture and action are impoverished without accounting
for the role of objects in our explanations (Latour 1992). We off-load work onto objects to replace
human effort and then forget how those objects have come to shape behavior. We ignore cultural
objects’ centrality to action until they break down or misbehave. By taking objects for granted, we treat
them as static constants in our analysis. Instead, if we view objects as partners or collaborators in action,
we can see how objects bring dynamism to our explanations. People collaborate with objects; objects
are our imperfect but essential partners in action that require work from us so that objects can work
with us. I call objects imperfect partners because they require a great deal of stabilization to act
predictably. Just as no representation perfectly captures or communicates an idea (Becker 2007), cultural
objects can hold meaning for only so long, until they require repair and stabilization—else their meaning
changes (McDonnell 2010) or they cease being a cultural object altogether when they degrade beyond
recognition (Domínguez Rubio 2016).
Arguments for the importance of studying objects abound (see Benzecry & Domínguez Rubio
2018, Hodder 2012, McDonnell 2010, Mukerji 1994a, Preda 1999, Woodward 2007), and the case for
material agency is well established (Barad 2003, Cerulo 2009, Gell 1998, Latour 2005, Pickering 2010).
This review bridges this work on objects, materiality, and material culture with work in cultural sociology,
to develop a framework that accounts for the role of cultural objects in sociological explanations of
action. Scholars of materiality and cultural sociologists need each other. Cultural sociologists who rely on
people-side explanations can learn much of the contingencies of matter from scholars of materiality and
material culture. Attention to materiality moves us away from treating objects as static carriers of
symbols and inert sites of people's projections to viewing objects as contingent participants in meaning-
making and action (Jerolmack & Tavory 2014). Theorists of material agency and object-side explanations
for action often gloss over how meaning and interpretation operate as mechanisms of action. A more
complete theory of culture in action requires synthesizing the insights from cultural sociology and
scholarship on objects and materiality.
Tracing how objects and materiality shape meaning-making can offer more robust accounts of action. I
propose the following path, which structures this review: A focus on object qualities orients us to
potential meanings and lines of action afforded by those objects. Interactions among object qualities and
people's embodied cognitive capacities shape and change agentic possibility. Objects, then, have cultural
power both by stabilizing meaning-making and social arrangements and by the inverse—destabilizing
routines and opening up new lines of action. Objects have power through various direct and indirect
mechanisms, which I discuss through the lenses of figure and ground. By centering these insights from
the study of cultural objects and mechanisms of meaning-making, we deepen theories of culture in
action, culture and cognition, and the production and reception of culture. Throughout, I discuss
condoms and guns as cases to illuminate these insights. 1 Before boldly charging down this path, let me
briefly review where we have been.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF OBJECTS IN CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY

Objects have been central to the development of cultural sociology. The study of culture in American
sociology coalesced when objects, especially art objects, became the central focus of study. Seeking to
distinguish between humanities and social scientific approaches, sociologists’ analyses of objects
emphasized social dimensions through the production and reception of culture: how institutional logics
and processes shaped the production and circulation of objects (Becker 1982, Peterson 1997) or how
belonging to particular groups constrains how people interpret objects (Griswold 1987, Halle
1993, Radway 1991). Despite this focusing effect of art as a case, sociologists of culture were inhibited in
their analysis of objects themselves (Wolff 1992). Much of this early work studied art objects because
they gave access to the human systems of production and audience interpretations. The objects
themselves were often an afterthought except in some exemplary cases where object qualities came to
the fore (Becker 1982, Berezin 1994, Cerulo 1995, Griswold 2000, Wagner-Pacifici & Schwartz 1991).
This focus on the production and reception of objects dominated sociological research on culture for the
better part of two decades. Thus, this first wave of cultural sociology relied on objects, but object-
centered explanations were rarely foregrounded. Objects primarily served as access points to explain
institutionalized systems of cultural production or group interpretation and reception patterns.
Starting in the late 1980s, the second wave of cultural sociology increasingly directed attention to
internalized cognitive schemas, practices, and cultural structures (Alexander 2003, Bourdieu
1977, DiMaggio 1997, Lizardo & Strand 2010, Patterson 2014, Swidler 1986, Vaisey 2009) in an effort to
explain meaning and action. However, within sociology, the shift toward cognition and internalized
meaning systems relegated objects as subordinate to the study of ideas (Domínguez Rubio 2014). For
much of this second-wave sociology of culture work, cultural objects were carriers of cultural structures
or markers of cognitive outcomes, not actors in their own right. Cultural objects were treated as data—
evidence of cultural structures and cognitive processes—but not as things with causal power. The culture
in action tradition emphasized how internalized culture (in the head/body) shapes people's choice of
action, both in the sense of what interpretive schemas and actions a person has at their disposal and
how people select among these to act. Swidler's intervention into theories of action was to argue that
culture influences action not by articulating ends but by giving people capacities for action: “Culture
equips persons for action both by shaping their internal capacities and by helping them bring those
capacities to bear in particular situations” (Swidler 2001, p. 72). Cognitive approaches have improved
sociological accounts of action by emphasizing how schemas and embodied skills shape these capacities
(Boutyline & Soter 2021, DiMaggio 1997, Ignatow 2007, Wood et al. 2018). However, cultural sociology
has yet to sufficiently grapple with how objects make possible and shape people's capacities for action.
The time has come to bring objects into the explanation.
We need an approach that synthesizes the theoretical advances on objects outside of sociology with the
excellent work on cultural objects within the discipline. Rich accounts of objects and action have
flourished in adjacent fields, including anthropological and archeological studies of material culture
(Appadurai 1986, Gell 1998, Ingold 2007, Miller 2005), ecological psychology's theory of object
affordances (Gibson 1979), and debates about the agency of objects among scholars of science and
technology studies (Latour 2009, Pickering 2010, Pinch & Bijker 1984). While some pioneering cultural
sociologists incorporated these groundbreaking insights from other fields back into their sociological
work, breathing new life into the study of material objects as important sites of culture (Mukerji
1994a, DeNora 2000, Molotch 2003), only recently has the cultural sociology of objects, materiality, and
material culture flourished. This third wave of cultural sociology takes seriously the importance of
explaining how objects and their material qualities shape meaning and action, productively bridging
work on material agency with the study of meaning.

CLARIFYING FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS

In this section, I clarify conceptual ambiguities in the study of cultural objects, materiality, and material
culture.
What Is a Cultural Object?
Let us begin with one of cultural sociology's touchstone concepts, the cultural object. Griswold's (1986,
p. 5) definition of a cultural object as “shared significance embodied in form” has stood the test of time
and anchored generations of sociologists’ work. Implicit in this definition is the idea that cultural objects
are dual and relational. By dual, I suggest that cultural objects are simultaneously cognitive (i.e.,
significance—ideas embodied schematically) and material (i.e., form—ideas embodied in a medium).
These cognitive and material instantiations of cultural objects are then relational in that they are deeply
intertwined and contingent upon each other, and meanings converge in the relations among people and
shared experience with objects in the world.
What Is Meant by Shared Significance?
What is shared significance? For Griswold, significance refers to symbols that denote or connote
meaning for people. More than just significance, a cultural object is significant if it enrolls people into an
“extended set of meanings” (Griswold 1986). To be cultural, such meanings must be shared—not just
personally significant. There are degrees of sharedness and significance. People may recognize or name
an object but not understand its meaning (McDonnell et al. 2017b). This line between personal and
cultural significance is complicated by Lizardo's (2017) recent distinction between personal and public
culture. Personal significance of an object may still be cultural in the sense that people's personal culture
is shaped by shared interactions with a world of objects and people. When are meanings that emerge
from personal culture individual versus shared? A child's toy rabbit may become personally meaningful
because of the unique personal experiences shared with that rabbit and the imaginative work done to
bring it to life. Another person would not have intuited just by looking at the rabbit that his name is
Snickerdoodle or that the child imagines that he is a farmer. Lizardo's argument makes room for
understanding idiosyncratic interpretations of objects as cultural because personal culture is a product of
enculturation. Even if someone cannot guess the name or imagined backstory by simply looking at the
toy rabbit, they can recognize the acts of naming and imaginative play as familiar cultural forms. The
source of meaning (i.e., content and/or form) and degree of sharedness (i.e., how much overlap is there
between people in the meanings and comprehensibility of the object) are important to consider.
Personal significance can be analyzed as cultural, but the analyst needs to be clear what is not cultural. In
this case, the form is cultural, but those meanings that are not intuitive givens to our cultural peers are
personal. If a child's interpretation of a toy rabbit is that it is great tinder for a fire, while technically
comprehensible, this is probably beyond what people might reasonably interpret or expect in most
situations.
Form: Cultural Objects as Materially Perceptible
For culture to be shared, it must be externalized in forms both perceivable and comprehensible to
others. Importantly, Griswold's idea of “embodied in form” extends beyond what material culture
scholars refer to as “artifacts” and the distinction between material and nonmaterial objects. Auslander
(2012), for instance, limits material culture to those objects one can touch or taste, emphasizing
tangibility over visuality or aurality. In so doing, Auslander distinguishes between violins and concertos,
viewing concertos as abstract and untouchable. While an emphasis on artifacts has been productive for
material culture scholars—especially approaches to material culture grounded in archeology—such
distinctions are too narrow for cultural sociologists. Griswold's definition treats speech as a cultural
object, allowing us to assess how the same idea communicates and circulates meaning differently
through speech versus printed text. Given that philosophy lectures, Netflix's algorithmic TV
recommendations, and a mime performance can all be sensed and communicate meaning, the question
then becomes how the qualities of similar objects shape meaning and action in patterned
ways. Griswold's (1987, p. 1079) emphasis on the “perceptual apparatus of those who experience the
object” suggests that spoken folktales or a performance of a play count as objects even as they are not
artifacts. The crucial point is that a cultural object must be materially perceptible to the senses
(McDonnell 2010)—cultural ideas made manifest in external form.
Types and Tokens: Cultural Objects as Cognitive and Material
Cultural objects are dual—both cognitively internalized shared significance and externalized in material
form. How should we make sense of this in practical terms? When we study cultural objects, we should
analyze them both as types and tokens (Peirce 1992) and be cognizant of the dynamic relation between
them (Taylor et al. 2019). Types are internalized cognitive, embodied, schematic categories based on
prior experience with a wide array of objects—the category of “gun.” Tokens are unique material
instantiations of objects in the world—my father's Secret Service–issued revolver. The type “gun” may
have many diverse tokens in the world: AR-19s, hunting rifles, nerf guns, clay pigeon shotguns, sniper
rifles, guns in a video game, toy guns with red tips, or 3D-printed guns. Each new token we confront in
the world requires us to reflect on and refine our fuzzy understanding of what counts as “gun” as type.
This suggests a couple of things. First, cultural objects as types are rarely perfectly stable—new tokens
with slight variations force us to restabilize or revise the type. Second, the sharedness of the cognitive
type imperfectly overlaps with cultural peers because people experience different sets of tokens.
Cultural objects are always, then, relations between types, tokens, and the interactions (among people,
objects, and groups) that hone, converge, or diverge our understandings of them. Cultural objects as
types presuppose conventions that are either adhered to or challenged in the production of tokens
(Becker 1982). Encountering new tokens in the world leads people to maintain or revise types, meaning
materiality serves as a mechanism for stability and cultural change (Taylor et al. 2019). Types and tokens
are mutually constitutive of cultural objects and inherently relational and dynamic. To have robust
theories of action, we need to take this seriously and synthesize research on cognition and material
objects.
Material Culture and Materiality
With all this talk of material, what is the distinction between material culture and materiality? As a
shorthand, material culture research examines what people do with objects, and studies of materiality
examine what objects do with or for people. Studies of material culture tend to examine the systems of
meaning that stabilize around specific categories of objects, usually artifacts such as vinyl records
(Bartmanski & Woodward 2015) or blue jeans (Miller & Woodward 2012). Resembling work on fan
cultures, subcultures, and consumption, material culture scholarship emphasizes audiences coming to
shared meanings and using objects as sites of expression (Douglas & Isherwood 1979, Hebdige 1988)
and contestation (DeSoucey 2016). This research interrogates how people engage in attachment and
valuation (Miller 2009), distinguish insiders and outsiders through boundary work (Wohl 2015), and
creatively “poach” and repurpose objects (Jenkins 1992), or the identity work made possible through
collecting or preserving objects' traditions (Hebdige 1983, Jordan 2015). A material culture approach to
guns might examine gun culture—how pockets of social life focally organize around guns, from militias to
gun clubs, to paintball and rifle hunting, to gun politics and the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Conversely, studies of materiality (Domínguez Rubio 2014, 2020; Greenland 2016; Griswold et al.
2013; Mangione 2016; McDonnell 2010; Miller 2005; Mukerji 1994a; Zubrzycki 2013) focus on the
material qualities of objects and the contingent ways those qualities shape the meaning and use of those
objects. In this sense, meanings are not overdetermined by the social constructions of group culture.
Instead, a focus on materiality attends to how objects are enrolled in lines of action, sometimes in
subversive ways. A focus on the materiality of guns would examine how the qualities of guns shape their
use: how gun size permits concealed carry, how the gun's bullet capacity and rate of fire permit mass
casualties, how its weight and recoil may make it difficult to fire accurately, how 3D-printed guns may
evade security systems, etc. I discuss the move to focus on object qualities at length below.

SYMBOLS, QUALITIES, AFFORDANCES

Symbols and Qualities

Historically, cultural sociology has treated objects merely as symbol carriers (for a critique,
see Domínguez Rubio 2014), without attending to how other material attributes of the object might
shape that symbol's capacity to communicate intended meanings (Keane 2003, McDonnell 2010).
Treating objects as symbols can lead analysts to narrowly presume that an object's symbolic content is
the only source of meaning, obscuring the multiple pathways to meaning and the fact that objects can
mean multiple things at the same time. There is another danger in treating objects only as passive
symbol carriers, rather than emergent in interaction: Objects “cannot merely be seen as ‘outcomes’ or
‘effects’ of a prior set of social relations, or as the material ‘vehicles’ of meaning, for this view tends to
ignore their capacity to affect people and to create new social bonds, practices, and meanings”
(Domínguez Rubio 2014, p. 620). Without an account of objects as more than just symbol carriers,
explanations for polyvocality, creativity, misinterpretation, or reappropriation must resort to variations in
audiences. Certainly, audiences matter, but a fuller accounting of these phenomena demands that we
“treat cultural objects as objects” to theorize object-side mechanisms for meaning-variation (McDonnell
2010, p. 1848).
Studies of materiality beyond cultural sociology decenter the privileged position of language and
symbols (Barad 2003) and instead treat cultural objects as bundles of qualities (Keane 2003; see
also Martin 2011 on qualities). Considering qualities permits a move away from Saussure's semiotics—
where meaning is abstract and established in conceptual difference—preferring instead Peirce's
relational semiotics, where signs develop “meaning in the context of a continuing process of
interpretation” (Rochberg-Halton 1982, p. 458). Rather than just treating objects as self-evident
representations, people interpret them by attending to different qualities in different moments. For
example, Mechai Viravaidya, a Thai politician nicknamed Mr. Condom, sought to normalize condoms by
encouraging their multiple uses beyond the prophylactic ends condoms were designed for—as an
inflatable balloon for school kids, as a way to protect phones from typhoons. The shift to a Peircean
semiotics grounded in process, relations, and qualities better “bring[s] theories of the sign into a full,
robust articulation with accounts of human actions” (Keane 2003, p. 410). Instead of identifying an
object's symbolic meaning in a web of meanings, the move to Peirce orients scholars to ask how people
enroll objects into action (Latour 2005). For example, treating objects as bundles of qualities (i.e., the
condom's latex material makes it waterproof and stretchable enough to inflate) draws attention to the
contingent ways in which they are picked up as people pursue lines of action, rather than predetermined
by an abstract system of codes.
Thinking of objects in terms of qualities rather than symbols does not negate the symbolic and
representative work they do. My argument is that we need “both and,” not “either or.” This move
broadens the semiotic possibilities analysts can now observe. We can see how, treated as material
instantiations in the world, the physical qualities of ink or paint cause symbols to change, altering their
capacity to represent and signify: whether a vanishing self-portrait of da Vinci (Domínguez Rubio 2016),
the degraded paint on classical marble sculptures leaving only the now-iconic white representations
(Greenland 2016), or the fading red ink of a red AIDS awareness ribbon into a pink breast cancer ribbon
over time (McDonnell 2010). When we analyze objects through the lens of qualities, more than just
symbols, the capacities for objects are inherently more open. An object quality may symbolize, but it
may also interact with physical environments, degrade, permit or deny circulation, and more.
Affordances
Once we privilege attention to qualities, we can now ask how those qualities afford particular meanings
and uses in relation to specific people. The concept of affordances first emerges from ecological
psychologist J.J. Gibson (1979), who sought to understand how people perceive and interact with their
environments. For Gibson, affordances are opportunities for action made possible by the environment.
Afforded actions are always relational: constituted by the physical qualities of objects and the
environment and the embodied cognitive capacities of people interacting with that environment. The
qualities of a rock may afford particular uses: Depending on its shape, it could serve as a place to sit;
depending on its texture, it could be used to grind meal. Crucially, qualities may exclude affordances for
some people. A 50-lb. rock may be liftable for an adult, affording throwing or stacking, but that weight
may exclude such affordances for toddlers. Extending this insight, the affordances of cultural objects
similarly constrain and enable action and do so differently for people with different capacities.
From a cultural sociology perspective, affordances offer a “relational approach that values the material
and symbolic qualities of objects in conjunction with the cognitive and bodily capacities of people in
settings” (McDonnell 2016, p. 27). The concept does this by moving “beyond the image of audiences as
readers who elucidate the symbolic meanings already embedded in an object … objects are no longer
the static, passive side of meaning-making but an active, dynamic contributor to the meaning-making
process” (McDonnell 2016, p. 27). Scholars of affordances (DeNora 2000, Gibson 1979, Norman 1988;
see Davis 2020 for an excellent review) focus on the interaction between object qualities and people's
capacities. Through this interaction, analysts can assess how particular constellations of meanings and
uses emerge in practice.
DeNora (2000, p. 22) was the first to bring the affordance approach to cultural sociology to show how
meanings are “brought to life in and through the interplay of forms and interpretation.” In this, meaning
dynamically emerges from how objects afford uses that people incorporate into everyday life. DeNora
makes this distinction in her contrast of musicological and affordance approaches. Musicological
analyses identify meaning in the arrangement of elements—looking at how meaning is inscribed implies
that the meaning is stable and settled based on a song's symbolic content. By examining musical
affordances as a site for “work, or meaning and lifeworld making,” DeNora (2000, p. 40) instead
considers “music's interpretive flexibility, the way in which music's affordances—moods messages,
energy levels, situations are constituted from the circumstances of use” (pp. 43–44). DeNora points us to
how the qualities of a song make particular affordances possible that in turn shape, but do not
determine, how we use music: dancing at the club, staying motivated on a run, studying in the library,
etc. A cultural sociology grounded in affordances makes visible the relationality and reflexivity in
interactions between objects and people and brings dynamism into our accounts of how objects are
incorporated into action and projects. 2
An affordances approach acknowledges that objects afford many potential multiple meanings and uses
for people. Material affordances may be thought of as “potential energy,” or possible meanings and
actions that are available to people but not yet enacted, distinct from whether that object's potential is
made “kinetic”—recognized by people and then incorporated into action (McDonnell 2016, p. 31).
People engage in imaginative work identifying many possible affordances, including actions whose
potentiality exists but is not enacted (Nagy & Neff 2015). Given different situations or arrangements of
people, objects, and settings (McDonnell 2016), different qualities may become salient in opening
alternative lines of action. Attention to affordances, therefore, makes possible richer accounts of the
polyvocality of objects, moving beyond audience-only explanations dominating reception theory that
identify stable interpretations produced by groups.
Benediktsson (2022, p. 5) makes an important distinction between affordances and programming, which
is “the act of embedding affordances in an object or place,” and distinguishes between objects’ material,
symbolic, and institutional programming. Material programming may be physically coercive over
behavior, symbolic programming relies on signs or labels to cheaply reinforce or modify intended
patterns of use, and institutional programming establishes what is expected of object-interactions by
assigning specific uses through laws or norms. From a design perspective, well-crafted objects are
designed such that the qualities of the object tell us how we are supposed to use them (Norman 1988),
and thus their meanings and uses appear natural and stable. This is programming par excellence—the
affordances stabilize the meaning and use of objects.
For objects that communicate their afforded meanings and uses less clearly, we require conventions
(Becker 1982), habit (Bourdieu 1977), and ritual (Durkheim 1995) to hold meaning together. Not
knowing the conventional use of red ribbons to symbolize AIDS awareness, Ghanaians interpreted the
ribbons as red bows for funereal decoration (McDonnell 2016). Carefully crafted programs are subject to
disruption, meaning analysts need to trace how people receive the affordances of objects and enroll
them into action. Sometimes this happens through processes of “enunciation” (de Certeau
1984, McDonnell 2010) when people harness the qualities of objects to put to alternative uses: cooking
pots and spoons are used as drums in pot-banging protests, glitter is turned to glitter bombs to shame
anti-LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning) public figures (Gold 2022), and
thousands of pennies are used to simultaneously pay a fine and object to it (Stoltz & Taylor 2017). This
“purposeful enunciation” (Stoltz & Taylor 2017) sometimes stabilizes as a new cultural repertoire (Gold
2022).
Recently, Davis has advocated for treating affordances as mechanisms, such that our analyses should
examine how objects “request, demand, allow, encourage, discourage, and refuse” (Davis 2020, p. 11).
By orienting us to patterns in objects’ cultural and institutional legitimacy and the person's perceptual
capacities and dexterity, Davis pushes us to identify generalizable ways objects afford and are enrolled
into programs of action. This approach has important implications for cultural sociology's use of
affordances. How do cultural objects afford mechanisms like resonance or iconicity? How do object
qualities afford an openness to enunciation and creativity? A mechanisms approach to affordances
orients us to theorize distinct pathways through which cultural objects are enrolled in and essential to
action.
Affordances, Perception, and Experience
The affordances of objects depend upon the human capacities (cognitive, physical, linguistic, skills) of the
people interacting with the object. Work on the sociology of the senses makes clear how people's
perceptual capacities and embodied cognition shape meaning-making (Cerulo 2018, Friedman
2011, Greenland 2016, Klett 2014, Lembo 2020, Mangione 2016, Simmel 1997, Winchester 2016).
Research has productively synthesized the literature on materiality and cognition to explore how
affordances vary by sense perception, ability, experience, and setting. Scholars productively decenter
vision by exploring how smell (Cerulo 2018), sound (Klett 2014, Schwarz 2015), touch (Mangione 2016),
and taste (Jordan 2015, Leschziner & Green 2013) shape meaning-making. Attention to how material
qualities of objects activate the senses offers an approach to meaning-making grounded in aesthetic
experience rather than abstract symbols (Dewey 1934). This work productively moves past theories of
meaning built on a structuralist foundation of symbolic binaries to examine experience, especially how
qualities are potentials actualized in experience (Lembo & Martin 2022). Using a condom is just such an
aesthetic experience. Condoms are publicly codified and symbolically linked to moral orders (Tavory &
Swidler 2009); however, the aesthetic experience is not strongly codified in advance because public talk
about personal sensory experiences with condoms is rare. Sensory experiences with condoms’
materiality have shared character, which leads to shared meaning and behavior: the sensory-motor
challenges of unrolling a male condom for the first time, the experience of tightness or looseness, the
“plastic” smell, or the feel or taste of lubricant. Condom's unpredictable corporeal-material dimensions
shape that experience as well, as when one discovers they have a broken condom or a latex allergy.
Inquiring into people's aesthetic experiences with objects makes accessible how people's sensory
experience of the material qualities of objects mediate how they can imagine the set of possible
affordances. To understand an unfamiliar object, people use their bodies to examine its material qualities
—they touch it, pick it up, work with it, explore it, test how it could be used, imagine possibilities and
purposes, and rule out alternatives until they come to an understanding of what it means and how it
could be used (Boehme 2014). The same happens when engaging a familiar object but creatively
imagining how it could be put to alternative uses. Through embodied simulation, people cognitively
compare the present sensory experience with an object with past experiences they've had with
analogous objects with similar qualities (Cerulo 2018). Such “simulations represent predictions”—
imagined expectations of how that object can be interpreted or used, serving as a basis for action
(Barsalou 2009, p. 1284; see also Ignatow 2007).
These insights constitute the beginnings of a corporeal-material approach to meaning-making and action
that presents a viable alternative to theories built on abstract symbols. Such an approach asks how
materiality, sense perception, and cognitive processes shape what lines of action people can imagine and
how people choose to make potential affordances kinetic in action. Analyzing condoms through a
corporeal-material approach would attend to how the meanings of condoms are multiple and changing,
emerging from aesthetic experiences over time. Some people develop embodied skill and comfort with
condoms. Some experience condoms as arousing because they permit sexual freedom through safe sex
—their qualities prevent pregnancy and HIV transmission. Others find condoms clumsy and unsexy
because of the ways the material mediates or interrupts sexual sensory experiences. A corporeal-
material framework opens fruitful new ways to emphasize the interplay between perception, cognition,
object affordances, and creativity, which have direct implications for theories of action.

MATERIAL AGENCY

Cultural objects are not neutral social constructions, but their material and symbolic qualities influence
action. They constrain and enable the set of possible actions through affordances, but also through their
absences. Objects are agentic in that they permit people to do things they could not do otherwise (or at
the same scale). Objects distribute people's personhood over time and space. Objects can lead us to
reflect, reconsider, and redirect our action. They point us to previously unconsidered possibilities. They
call upon us to work with and around them in specific ways. Cultural objects are agentic.
What does this mean? Broadly, proponents of material agency advocate for treating objects and other
nonhumans as actors in our accounts of action. Such accounts decenter people in theories of agency. As
an idea, material agency covers a range of propositions, some more palatable to sociologists than others.
The easiest-to-swallow argument for sociologists is that objects have agency by standing in for humans,
acting on our behalf as secondary agents and enacting our will over time and space (Gell 1998). In such
accounts, people imbue objects with the intention to affect or influence others’ behavior. People fire
guns intending to harm people from greater distances than their bodies alone allow, or as Gell notes,
soldiers who place antipersonnel mines have their intentions manifested long after they were deployed.
We create technologies like speed bumps and door closers to work and act in the world replacing human
labor—instead of a police officer with a “slow” sign or a doorman, we have these objects doing that
work instead (Latour 1992).
A more provocative claim is that objects have agency independent of human intention, and it is difficult
to isolate human agency from the agency of objects (Latour 2005, 2009). To continue the gun example,
“You are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another
subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship
with you” (Latour 2009, p. 179). Advocates for material agency argue agency does not reside exclusively
in humans, but in the relation between human and object—add or remove the gun and the set of
possibles are reconfigured. Holding a gun fundamentally changes your possible paths of action, the
extent of possible harm, how people interpret your intentions, and how people act around you.
Sociologists resist the idea of material agency because human intention is so central to sociological
accounts of agency—people pick up the gun, imbuing it with intention, otherwise it would be dormant.
Latour points to the NRA slogan “Guns don't kill people, people kill people” to caricature the distinction
between materialist and sociological accounts of agency. The NRA's explicitly sociological account that
people kill people treats a gun as “a neutral carrier of will that adds nothing to the action” (Latour 2009,
p. 177, emphasis in original)—all that matters is human intention. Certainly, human intention matters.
The point here is that objects matter too.
As a cultural sociologist, I am more interested in the pragmatist- and interactionist-inflected accounts of
material agency that are linked with human creativity and imagination where agency is temporally
emergent (Jerolmack & Tavory 2014). Humans and objects engage in a deeply entwined dance of agency
where paths of action emerge over time through interaction (Pickering 2010). Pickering shows how the
process of science is a dialectical interaction between material agency in the world and how we capture
that agency, interpret its meaning, and enroll it into the project of science. Accounts of material agency
from science studies are excellent but often sneak semiotics and meaning-making in the back door. I find
this collaborative vision persuasive, but what is missing from most accounts of material agency are
sophisticated accounts of the mechanisms of meaning-making that make actions possible.
When observers interpret a person with gun, assessing the possible affordances directly impacts how
they respond. Can that person with that gun shoot me if I hide here? How many people could they harm
before they would be subdued? Symbolic interactionist and cultural-cognitive accounts can help us tease
out whether a person with a gun is anticipated—like a uniformed officer patrolling Congress—or
schematically read as “matter out of place” and therefore threatening, as when someone appears with
an automatic weapon at a park or school (Douglas 1996). People read intention into the material
configurations of people, gun, location, dress, posture, and more. The chains of meaning and action that
proceed from these interpretations shape whether and how other actants are enrolled into action: What
objects in the environment have the affordances of shield or hiding place? Can this rock or tree limb
serve as a viable weapon? How quickly can authorities be called to the scene?
If affordances are potential meanings and uses of objects, agency is in how that potential gets enacted.
Agency emerges in interactions between objects and people, through the availability of objects, through
the recognition of affordances, and in imagining and selecting lines of action (both those intended by
object designers and those creatively enunciated). Below, I examine each of these aspects to show how
cultural sociology becomes essential to the work of bridging material and human agency. I advocate for a
synthesis of cultural sociology and theories of material agency that takes seriously objects’ influence on
action and that places meaning at the center of that approach. I illustrate this through an account of how
Ghanaian women turned female condoms into bangle bracelets.
Objects need to be available to enroll them into action—objects ready at hand are more likely to affect
action than objects that are far away (Schudson 1989). Production of culture and diffusion of innovations
research offer robust explanations for the distribution and institutional availability of cultural objects,
which prefigure objects’ influence and use (Becker 1982, Peterson 1997, Rogers 2003). Female condoms
became available because health nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) wanted to encourage a female-
controlled prophylactic that could prevent HIV. Condoms afford counting through sales—something that
NGOs wanted to track as evidence of successful intervention. Public health organizations subsidized their
cost to encourage their diffusion and accessibility. But distribution was limited, through clinics and peer
education (rather than advertising or retail markets), because female condoms require training so that
women can recognize the affordances of the object.
People cannot enroll objects into lines of action unless they can recognize their affordances
(Benediktsson 2022, McDonnell et al. 2017b). Recognition is fundamentally an act of meaning-making.
Understanding how cultural objects and their material affordances become recognizable requires the
tools of reception theory. Recent research seeking to understand how people converge on meanings has
revealed a variety of cultural mechanisms, from dispositions to qualities of objects to interaction
(Jerolmack & Tavory 2014, McDonnell 2010, Rawlings & Childress 2021). To make the agentic capacities
of female condoms legible, peer educators trained women how to interact with their material qualities
to use the condoms as intended (e.g., how to pinch the ring for insertion and fit it over the cervix, how
to twist the condom to safely remove it) and promoted female condoms as symbols of empowerment.
Ideally, women's dispositions, their material interactions with the condom, and the persuasiveness of
the peer education would motivate them to use the condoms with their sexual partner.
Affordances structure the set of possible meanings and actions but do not determine which lines of
action are ultimately selected. A fully elaborated vision of agency must attend to how people imagine
and weigh how they might enroll objects as they solve problems along with the possible consequences
of those choices (Jerolmack & Tavory 2014, Nagy & Neff 2015). Peer education is an act of embodied
simulation where participants imagine future actions this object affords. Material agency is thus
projective (Emirbayer & Mische 1998), grounded in imagining potential lines of action through an
object's material and symbolic affordances. Material agency is also emergent in interaction—it can be
difficult to predict how a material object will transform relations, destabilizing intended meanings and
uses, thereby making room for new ones. For example, how women imagine using female condoms in
the peer education setting may clash with their experience later using them with partners. The aesthetic
experience interacting with the object's qualities (e.g., how it feels, smells, sounds; whether it
encourages or diminishes pleasure; how clumsy it to work with) and with their partner's responses (e.g.,
his sensory experience, or how the condom signifies a lack of trust) may lead them to decide against
using female condoms in the future. Frustrated by the mismatch of their expectations and experience,
these women may imagine alternative affordances for the condom.
Creativity is a cultural-cognitive process through which people imagine how affordances can be taken up
into novel action (Brett 2022, Leschziner & Green 2013, Taylor et al. 2019). Left with a box of condoms
and coming from a material culture that prizes reusing objects, Ghanaian women creatively enunciated
new purposes for female condoms (McDonnell 2010). Thinking analogically, the size, shape, and
substance of the condoms’ rubber rings resemble jelly bracelets. The material of the female condoms
affords physical change, including resizing by making them malleable in boiling water and dyeing to look
more attractive. The agency of creatively enunciating new uses emerges interactively between the
person and the material qualities of the condoms, and the way the material qualities suggest alternative
uses. The failure of the condom's programmed purpose made it possible to enroll them in an alternative
project (Mische 2009), as I doubt jewelry entrepreneurs were looking for raw materials in condoms. The
material qualities of the female condom, women's creativity, and subsidized costs reconfigured the
condom from a prophylactic to a new jewelry business.

OBJECTS AS STABILIZING AND DESTABILIZING

Having established objects as agentic, sociologists are increasingly interested in understanding how
objects both reproduce and transform social structure by stabilizing and destabilizing social
arrangements. By stabilize, I mean that consistent meanings and actions adhere to objects such that
objects make social relations appear patterned and predictable. Objects are essential to many habits,
routines, and rituals, stabilizing the definition of the situation while also reinscribing that object's typical
meaning and use. The more we use an object in specific, programmed ways, the harder it can become to
imagine other affordances. Stabilization, then, is a process of closure—the disappearance of problems
and the emergence of a settled, uncontroversial consensus of the object's meanings and uses (Pinch &
Bijker 1984). When stable, people's actions with such cultural objects are expected and predictable. We
internalize the meanings and uses of objects through a process of enculturation resulting from our
experiences engaging the world of cultural objects. So long as the material qualities of the object do not
give way, then repeated, routine interactions can hold in place the typical meanings and uses of an
object.
Certainly, human action helps to stabilize the meanings of objects, but so too do objects stabilize.
Cultural objects’ concrete material enables events to coalesce and take shape (Wagner-Pacifici 2017)
and provides an infrastructure for classification systems (Bowker & Star 2000). Systems of classification
powerfully structure action (Douglas 1996) but require objects to make such classifications manifest and
relevant (here again, material tokens are essential to cognitive types). Objects are essential to making
categorical distinctions by marking and exacerbating the distance between categories through their
qualities (Nippert-Eng 1995, Zerubavel 1991). We cannot keep everything in our head (D'Andrade 1995),
so objects help stabilize and structure our routines, cognition, and action.
People rely on the world of objects to scaffold cognition and action (Lizardo & Strand 2010). We off-load
memory and cognitive work into objects—pen and paper to-do lists are more reliable than
memorization, so long as the ink does not get wet and run. Regularities of objects in the environment
cue our behavior and facilitate action, such as condom dispensers at dance clubs. Cognition and
reasoning are distributed across people and objects (Hutchins 1996, Mukerji 2009), operating as an
“extended mind” (Clark & Chalmers 1998). Having condoms readily available allows people to make the
decision to have sex with strangers and scaffolds the practice of safe sex. When a condom breaks during
intercourse, it disrupts routine patterns of sex, leading people to enroll additional objects into decision
making. People feel increased anxiety, wondering “Am I pregnant?” or “Might I have contracted HIV?”
This invites opportunities for meaning-making, such as assessing the partner's risk of spreading an STD
or whether this is someone to partner with in raising a child. To process and make decisions, people
bring in other objects by, for example, buying a pregnancy or HIV test (or three!), or RU-486, or securing
a prescription for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drugs. One's pregnancy or HIV status may then
reconfigure and reorient future sexual activity, lead to new family responsibilities, or affect health
routines.
The example of a broken condom makes clear the ways objects can destabilize social arrangements—
they create situations and problems that need to be worked over by enrolling new objects and people
into the situation. When objects stop behaving as intended or expected, they disrupt routines and act
back on us. If social orders require objects to operate smoothly, objects then require maintenance, which
calls people and objects into action to ensure the stability of social arrangements. Cultural objects vary in
their docility—their ability to hold in place the meanings we have come to attach to things without much
effort (Domínguez Rubio 2014). Unruly objects threaten categories (Domínguez Rubio 2014), often
requiring a great deal of maintenance and repair to stabilize meaning, action, and value (Domínguez
Rubio 2016). As cultural objects like a Van Gogh painting degrade, they threaten to destabilize social
arrangements, undermining the meanings and actions we conventionally attach to them. Are these the
same colors Van Gogh intended, or have they faded? When does a painting stop doing the work it was
venerated for? Is the goal to restore (which requires imagining artist intention) or just prevent further
degradation? Taking an ecological approach, Domínguez Rubio (2020) uncovers all the care work
institutions like art museums engage in to preserve the category of art, enrolling environmental control
technologies, art preservationists, complicated storage systems, and more to preserve a painting's social
function as a cultural object and not just a thing.
Guns are similarly unruly. The tragedy on the Rust film set—where actor Alec Baldwin accidentally killed
cinematographer Halyna Hutchins—makes clear all the work it takes to maintain the category of a “cold
gun.” Guns are made safe for use on set because they require constant maintenance to ensure they do
not have live ammunition, using dummy rounds or blanks instead. The gun must be under constant
surveillance in controlled settings and repeatedly checked, and protocols have been developed around
shouting “cold gun!” before it enters the scene. Such moments make visible all the human labor it takes
to tame a gun (e.g., training, protocols, storage systems, security) and how destabilizing an unruly object
can be. This event has destabilized taken-for-granted social arrangements and meaning-making—whose
responsibility is it to ensure a gun is safe? How does one know the round is safe, and how do the
qualities of rounds make it difficult to tell a dummy round from a live one (Romano 2023)? The film
industry is rethinking protocols for how to make guns safe, even moving away from having blanks or
dummy rounds on set by adding muzzle flashes in postproduction ( Guardian 2023). What Domínguez
Rubio's ecological approach reveals is how this work of (re)stabilization is distributed across a range of
objects and people and how one unruly object can unsettle well-established arrangements.
Recent scholarship has shown a variety of ways in which the material qualities of cultural objects are
involved in processes of stabilization and destabilization of categories and classification systems.
Standards that enable entire industries to operate smoothly often depend upon the tightly controlled
maintenance of the physical world. For instance, to ensure standard shoe sizes, footwear companies
must build an elaborate infrastructure to hold the shape of their benchmarking model's foot so that it
remains immutable over time (Benzecry 2022). At other times, a cultural object's interpretive flexibility is
essential to stabilization. By sitting at the borders between communities of practice, boundary objects
can facilitate coordination and collaboration across domains because their qualities are interpreted and
valued differently by different groups (Star & Griesemer 1989). Using the case of animal specimens, Star
& Griesemer (1989, p. 393) argue scientific work is made possible because specimens are “both plastic
enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust
enough to maintain a common identity across sites.” In this way, groups with distinct commitments, such
as amateur animal trappers, zoologists, and museum collectors, can coordinate their action while
maintaining commitments to their ways of seeing the world.
Another way objects destabilize is through diffusing into new situations, which can sometimes lead to
social change (Rogers 2003, Rossman 2012), as exposure to new objects, or old objects in new
situations, can reshape how people see the world. The introduction of condoms into new settings has
played a role in changing sexual practice and mores. Research on the global flow of objects through
cultural circuits suggests that this process is contingent and fraught (Appadurai 1996, Hannerz
1992, Kopytoff 1986). Local cultures mediate the meaning and use of objects (Jijon 2019, Kay
2022, Kuipers 2015, Wherry 2008). Given the circulation of cultural objects across situations, the
meanings of cultural objects are always at risk, and we should view cultural objects and the cognitive and
interactional structures they scaffold as an ongoing accomplishment (Taylor et al. 2019). In using objects
in typical ways, we reinforce their conventions, but when confronting new pairings of objects and
contexts, we are forced to extend and revise our cognitive types to make sense of them and how to put
them to use.
New and unfamiliar cultural objects or objects that are out of place trigger deliberative cognition and are
open to interpretation (DiMaggio 1997, Taylor et al. 2019). In such situations, conventions have not
settled, and meaning and action are not yet stable. When the stabilization of meaning occurs, it usually
results from a great deal of work. The interpretive flexibility of objects may lead to contestation in
meaning, reinterpretation, revision, or redesign of cultural objects, ultimately leading to closure,
consensus, and stability (Pinch & Bijker 1984). Treating objects as part of a complex of production makes
visible the collaborative work of stabilization (Griswold 2000). For instance, by tracing a single
novel, Childress (2017) models how to trace the stabilization and destabilization of an object's meaning
as it moves through drafting, literary agents, editors, rejection, revision, blurbing, cover design,
publication, reviewers, and audiences. The meanings brought to the novel Jarrettsville at every stage are
consequential, contested, and momentarily stabilized—directly shaping action and interpretation.

CULTURAL POWER IN FIGURE AND GROUND

Objects vary in their cultural power—their capacity to shape our beliefs and behavior (Griswold
1987, McDonnell 2016, Schudson 1989). How do we make sense of these varying influences? I argue
that how objects shape belief and behavior depends on whether their cultural power manifests in direct
or indirect ways, what I refer to as objects acting as figure and ground, respectively.
Cultural objects sometimes shape us in direct ways when they are the focus of attention, often operating
through emotion and deliberative cognition. Interactions with some objects as figure can feel powerful,
arousing emotion and directing action through mechanisms of resonance, iconicity, and attachment.
These objects affect social life by taking center stage—by being the focus of our attention. When I ask my
students for examples of powerful objects, they often mention the American flag and talk about how
flags motivate soldiers on the battlefield or shore up national identity on Independence Day. But the
power of iconic objects like American flags varies across situations—people rarely salute or say the
Pledge of Allegiance to flags flying outside of Burger King.
Other times, objects influence social life indirectly through their taken-for-grantedness. As ground,
cultural objects have power by being incorporated into institutions and practice, constituting the built
environment, and establishing situational context. Such objects are more consistent in their effects, even
if we do not think of them as powerful because they do not move us emotionally. Institutionalized
objects like stop signs almost always compel us to stop even if we do not feel inspired by them. By not
calling attention to themselves, objects can reinforce or impose moral order and systems of domination
in ways that may be less obvious but no less powerful.
Figure
As figure, cultural objects command our attention, arousing emotions and pushing us to think in new
ways. How do cultural objects move us? How do objects shape our action directly as we give ourselves
over to their influence? These questions of figure emerge in the study of engaging objects and the hold
they have over us when we give them our attention.
Scholarship has emerged around three distinct mechanisms of cultural power: resonance, iconicity, and
attachments. In this section, I consider each in turn.
Resonance.
We have all heard someone say “that [insert cultural object] really resonated with me.” Resonance is a
feeling or experience that energizes us. This idea of resonance has long been taken up as a central
mechanism of cultural explanation (Bail 2012, Beisel 1993, Binder 1993, Schudson 1989). Recent
refinement has improved the operationalization of the concept, treating resonance as an experience that
emerges when interacting with objects produces an “aha!” moment of new cognitive connections being
made (McDonnell et al. 2017a). Resonance, then, occurs when a cultural object offers novel (yet
comprehensible) meanings and ways of thinking that help people solve problems (McDonnell
2014, McDonnell et al. 2017a). The emotional charge resulting from resonance can motivate people's
action and innovation, often along new directions, therefore serving as a mechanism of social and
cultural change. Resonance is happening when you read a new theory article that makes sense of your
data or hear a speech that articulates your feelings of injustice in new ways that motivate you to fight
back. Such moments energize people, driving them to act in ways that align with these novel ways of
seeing the world. Empirical tests of resonance confirm the curvilinear relationship between novelty and
resonance (Zhou 2022), the mediating effects of emotions (Bail 2012, Zhou 2022), and the field of other
objects (Bail 2016).
More work needs to be done to identify the conditions under which the experience of resonance is
sustained in action, rather than fizzling out. Continuing with the condom example, peer-educators report
that women initially experience female condoms as a resonant solution to the problem of women's
limited control over HIV prevention—they no longer have to rely on men to put on a condom. Despite
coming away from peer education meetings motivated to try this female-controlled contraception,
during their next sexual encounter their commitment to action may be disrupted. Maybe their partner
views the condom as indicating a lack of trust, or women find the mechanics difficult to use, or both
partners complain about material properties—the plastic wrap sound during sex or too-lubricated feel.
The experience of resonance may appear problem solving in an abstract discussion among other women,
but it may aggravate or generate new problems in material and contextual practice with their partners
(Park et al. 2021).
Iconicity.
Cultural objects can also shore up commitments and energize action through the aesthetic experience of
iconicity. Research on iconic objects highlights how images convey the meaning of a subject, often
instantaneously, and symbolically condense stories, narratives, and imaginaries (Sonnevend 2020). Iconic
images—like portraits of Marilyn Monroe, Che Guevarra, or Dorothea Lange's Migrant Woman—appear
to have power over us because of how the aesthetic experience of images captures the feeling of beauty,
revolution, or stoicism. Recently, sociologists have revived interest in aesthetics, iconicity, and iconic
power (Alexander 2008; Bartmanski 2015; Bartmanski & Alexander 2012; Bonnell 1999; Solaroli
2015; Zubrzycki 2013). Unlike Durkheim's theorization of totemic objects in which the group meanings
projected on the object are arbitrary and symbolic, materiality matters for iconic objects because icons
share sensory qualities with the subject depicted (Peirce 1992). The aesthetic experience of interacting
with the object is the meaning (Alexander 2008). Such work takes the material and visual affordances of
iconicity as explanatory (Bartmanski 2015). In this way, aesthetic experience is more than just what an
icon conventionally represents; it is a felt sensory experience. “Mere convention on its own could hardly
ever generate identification and effervescence often occasioned by and necessary for iconic effects”
(Bartmanski 2015, p. 27), suggesting the scale of social solidarity that icons manifest extends beyond
what custom could explain.
Iconic movie characters like James Bond, Dirty Harry, or Rambo are often inseparable from their iconic
guns—the Walther PPK, Smith & Wesson 0.44 Magnum, and AK-47, respectively. 3 Even as someone who
is not wrapped up in gun culture, I somehow know from memory the names of these weapons—they are
metonymic for these characters. The material qualities of these guns communicate different
masculinities. The sleek contours of the Walther are the suave, effortless cool of Bond; its small size
affords concealment, keeping his identity and propensity for violence secret. If Dirty Harry is one man
against the world, all he needs is one 0.44 caliber bullet to strike fear in street punks. Like Rambo, the
AK-47 is an oversized agent of chaos. Iconic images travel, shaping public imagination and action. For
instance, Marvel's gun-wielding character the Punisher—along with the rage-fueled masculinity he
encapsulates—appears to have offered a model for many who invaded on the January 6th, 2021,
invasion of the US Capitol Building (Jackson 2021).
More work needs to be done to operationalize and empirically test the iconic power of cultural objects
and nail down how objects afford iconicity, especially through materiality. Recent work on contestation
around iconic symbols and monuments points toward a productive direction by showing how iconicity
reinforces commitments but can also lead to social change. Zubrzycki (2013, p. 428) develops the idea of
“aesthetic revolt” to examine how people publicly “contest and rework symbols” materially altering
them to repurpose them to new transformational ends. Similarly, Simko et al. (2022) have shown how
the relocation and material modification of Confederate monuments recontextualize them, shaping
political debates and ultimately leading to cultural and mnemonic change.
Attachments.
Our emotional attachments to cultural objects also operate as mechanisms through which objects
exercise cultural power. People collect objects, craft objects, care for objects, and give themselves over
to objects, which carry attachments and emotional commitments. This passion for objects is an end in
itself (Gomart & Hennion 1999). Giving oneself over to being seized by objects can have powerful
effects; objects from lost loved ones can take on intense emotional connections, as when a widow wears
her husband's shirt for weeks after his death (Gibson 2008). Mundane objects become charged with new
meaning and put to important cultural work of mourning and memory, and those objects require new
routines of care and memorialization (Gibson 2008). Emotional realignments and moods permit people
to see objects in new ways and engage them in specific activities. Only when a woodworker “‘feels’ the
right mood that he is able to ‘see’ the wood in his garage as more than just a pile of boards” is he able to
imagine how they can be transformed (Lynch 2009, p. 94). Some objects have passionate fans—e.g.,
football jerseys—and when they become disrupted, fans’ deep emotional attachments lead them to find
ways to re-enchant those objects so as to maintain attachments (Benzecry 2015). Similarly, people who
have “book love” experience passionate emotional attachments that emerge through experiences of
materiality and iconicity, leading to deep commitments to reading, collecting, and reluctance to give
away books (Olave 2020).
People collect guns, display them, show them off, and attend gun shows to mingle with other
enthusiasts. Charlton Heston popularized the sentiment that ‘‘I'll give you my gun when you pry it from
my cold, dead hands,” indicating just how linked people's guns are to their selves. Essential to the
formation of the self and collective identities, objects operate as “plot devices” (Winchester 2017) in the
formation of identity, often “summoning” people into being (Tavory 2016). The Marine Corps's Rifle
Creed, 4 taught to new recruits, seeks to teach attachment, making clear that the rifle is an extension of
the self that requires care and protection:
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life … I will
ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes
and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other…
More than static accounts of sacred and profane, these works on attachment suggest just how essential
objects are in identity processes and how identities emerge through material care and preservation of
cultural objects. Emblematic of this work on objects, identity, and passion is Greenland's (2021) account
of Italian tombaroli—amateur tomb robbers who feel a thrill and a deep attachment to Italian history
through the excavation of Etruscan vases from the soil, which they view as acts of preservation. They
engage in such heritage-connecting practices at the risk of arrest and stigma. Greenland deftly engages
the interplay between cultural power as both figure and ground. The emotional power of their
attachments to these artifacts simultaneously motivates tombarolis’ risk of arrest while also affirming
and making manifest the power of the state to claim these vases as culturally protected.
Ground
As the ground of social life, objects shape cognition and behavior in more subtle and less direct ways.
Rather than passively treating objects as mere background, I advocate for a dynamic vision of ground
that views objects in our environment as foundational, setting the terms for action (see Pinch
2008, Wagner-Pacifici 2017). Objects as ground constitute social life. Cultural objects in our environment
structure meaning, practices, and interaction (Blumer 1969)—actively producing context. Cultural
objects force us to mold ourselves to identity categories, losing control of how we are seen—as when
Orthodox Jews whose wearing of the yarmulke was habitual and forgotten are called upon as Jews by
non-Jewish community members (Jerolmack & Tavory 2014). Regularities of objects in our environment
support and anchor our embodied, enculturated routines of behavior and understanding (Bourdieu
1977, Lizardo & Strand 2010). Objects’ power to shape social life can come from their role in social
reproduction (i.e., reinforcing patterns of action through routine engagement with objects) and by
establishing the grounds for action (i.e., cueing the definition of the situation, enabling some actions
while suppressing others). In this way, objects are powerful political and moral actors, often enrolled in
systems of domination.
Institutionalized objects.
Many of the objects that act as ground are institutionalized, meaning their use is routine and prescribed,
where sanctions appear if we disregard or misuse them. We often take for granted institutionalized
objects, such that they appear as part of the background to social life. Institutionally retained cultural
objects—like stop signs—tend to have powerful social support and sanctions (e.g., tickets) but they often
also have power due to their automaticity when incorporated into routine (Schudson 1989; see
also Swidler 1995). Most Americans tacitly accept stopping at a stop sign without actively deliberating or
considering the probability of receiving a ticket if they do not stop. Objects are powerful when operating
as ground precisely because their use and value are backed by well-established social conventions,
embedded in both formal and informal social institutions, and their exercise in this way is not often the
focus of deliberative consideration. This quiet power of objects has recently become more the focus of
attention as research underscores how even the routine presence of police with guns can profoundly
shape whether or not interactions are escalated toward violence.
Cultural objects influence the world by representing specific interests and valuing some actions over
others in their design, production, and use (Akrich 1992). The more it is institutionalized, the more this
programming becomes a powerful form of social control (Benediktsson 2022). Consequently, “artifacts
have politics” (Winner 1980), as objects are powerfully enrolled in systematic exclusion. Overpasses and
bridges on Long Island were intentionally designed with only nine feet of clearance to discourage access
by those who rely on buses (Winner 1980). The material design of subway station benches with vertical
armrests between seats discourages the homeless from sleeping on them (Benediktsson 2018). Thus,
the cultural objects that surround us communicate: they convey that some people are more valued than
others, they make interactions (im)possible among different people, and they shape patterns of cultural
exchange.
Efforts to institutionalize condoms to prevent HIV required a great deal of work: condom production and
distribution efforts, subsidies, media campaigns openly talking about condoms and sex, peer education,
changing sexual mores, etc. Organizational efforts sought to make condoms expected in some contexts,
encouraging sanctions (e.g., “if it's not on it's not in”). Condoms are accepted and expected in some
communities and controversial in others—despite all this work, institutionalization is not inevitable. In
Ghana, condoms and their marketing are political because they communicate and promote Western
logics: that sex and health behavior are individual choices, that family planning is a value, or that women
should have power over their bodies with female condoms. Public health organizations had to do more
than just persuade people to use condoms—condoms had to become routinely available. Getting
condoms in the moment after pharmacies closed was a challenge, so a campaign recruited local
purveyors of late-night pastries working outside of bars to distribute condoms, marking the carts with
Champion condom–branded stickers and umbrellas. People came to expect they could easily procure
condoms. Ultimately this system broke down—pastry sellers would share their umbrella with another
vendor who did not distribute condoms but needed to block the sun. The confusion that ensued from
this repurposed materiality weakened confidence in the instant availability of condoms.
Institutionalization requires both material and cultural upkeep.
Distributional availability.
The distribution and availability of objects reflect and reinforce broader inequalities.
Underrepresentation in novels, TV, and film establishes a norm of whose stories are told and valued.
Objects are biased in how they depict the world. We have recently seen how artificial intelligence
systems learn from the available cultural objects: “‘naturally occurring’ datasets that are rife with racial
(and economic and gendered) biases, the raw data that robots are using to learn and make decisions
about the world reflect deeply ingrained cultural prejudices and structural hierarchies” (Benjamin 2019,
p. 59). Wired magazine (Johnson 2022) reported in an article about the Dall-E 2 AI image generator that
“eight out of eight attempts to generate images with words like ‘a man sitting in a prison cell’ or ‘a photo
of an angry man’ returned images of men of color.” People are no less susceptible to the distributional
effects of cultural objects, which has implications for literatures on cultural schema– (Boutyline & Soter
2021, Wood et al. 2018) and canon-formation (Lena 2019). Once established, the ground of objects
tacitly conveys what is normal, expected, and valued.
Changes to the ground of objects can have profound effects on meaning systems. For a time, the
condoms available in Ghana were all basic, yellow, latex condoms regardless of the brand. When the
dominant public health organization distributing condoms lost their funding, they decided to sell a
“performance-enhancing” condom, hoping to find a profitable market. The organization altered the
qualities of the condom. They responded to complaints about the basic condoms by producing the
Aganzi condom with black latex to match African skin tones, upgraded the condom by making it ribbed,
and added a chemical retardant to help men last longer. Aganzi condoms became the most expensive
and most popular on the market. Moreover, the change in the material affordances of the condom led
some men to believe that they would be seen as cheap or uninterested in their partner's pleasure if they
used other condoms. Men reported that they would rather forego condoms if they could not secure an
Aganzi, undermining the organization's public health goals to prevent HIV.
Material environments.
In addition to the powerful effects of the distributional availability of objects, material environments can
both reproduce and dynamically alter social orders (Gieryn 2002). A city's material amenities can afford
cultural support for artistic or religious practice and community, which in turn reconfigures
neighborhoods (Lloyd 2006, Dugandzic 2022). Spaces are also arranged to persuade people to lines of
thinking, as in the work of house stagers selling homes (Vercel 2021) or the Creation Museum's walk
through the scientific evidence for the veracity of Bible's account of creation (Oberlin 2020). Bartram's
(2021) work on city inspectors suggests how a building's affordances enable inspectors to read intentions
into buildings’ material conditions, such as developer greed or “defensible disrepair” in African American
and low-income neighborhoods. In these ways, the built environment does more than structure—it also
makes space for reinterpretation, persuasion, creativity, and change.
Transforming the spatial arrangement of objects can reconfigure social relations (Mukerji 2009). Across
her many projects—articulating the Gardens of Versailles as a “laboratory of power” or chronicling how
peasants’ tacit material knowledge of classical hydraulics made the Canal du Midi possible—Mukerji
(1994b, 2009) documents how actively reshaping the material environment and its meaning is essential
to statecraft and the accumulation of power. Attention to how states accumulate power through material
infrastructural control and how people experience nation through material culture has become an
important thread of research within sociology. As Zubrzycki (2011, p. 22) notes, “the material
omnipresence of national mythologies … make[s] them especially resilient” (see also Greenland
2021, Surak 2013, Zubrzycki 2017).
Moral orders.
Cultural objects also scaffold and communicate morality as societies enroll objects to off-load moral
action and externalize moral training. Speed bumps and self-buckling seat belts impose and structure
moral order without individuals needing to internalize a reflective moral commitment to action (Latour
1992). Other objects may complicate moral adjudication: As technology firms develop self-driving cars,
who does the car decide to protect—the car's passengers or the pedestrians in its path? As we off-load
increasing work onto objects, the extent of their moralizing can have unintended consequences and
require interrogation. More than just imposing and reinforcing an existing moral ground, Bargheer
(2018) flips the causal arrow by demonstrating how practical commitments to cultural objects shape
emergent moral orders and commitments. The practice of “collecting birds” through birdwatching and
photography kindled emotional attachments that later engendered moral obligation and conservation
efforts. Angelo (2021) similarly examines how our moral commitments to nature were not inevitable.
The “greening” of cities was not always a good. Angelo (2021, p. 2) finds that transformations in the
material environment were necessary to make “greening legible as a form of moral action.” The world of
objects motivates new moral orders.

CONCLUSION

The concept of the cultural object made possible new avenues of sociological inquiry into meaning-
making. Cultural sociologists advocating for a material turn in the study of objects have revealed the
dynamism and independent effects of objects in meaning-making processes. This third wave points to
the complex and contingent ways that material qualities and symbols interact to stimulate, reinforce, or
upend meanings and uses of cultural objects. While cultural objects may appear consistent in their
meanings and use, their capacity to destabilize is always inherent in the objects themselves. When
people interpret and use objects in consistent ways, this as an accomplishment. Meaning is always at
risk, and people, objects, and environments coordinate to hold it together.
I have argued that cultural objects, materiality, and meaning are central to the sociological study of
action. Scholars have impoverished cultural accounts of action by emphasizing culture in people without
examining culture in objects in equal measure. Cultural explanations for action would benefit from
theorizing mechanisms through which objects shape meaning and agency and thereby exercise cultural
power. Objects’ qualities constrain and enable their meaning and use through what they afford for
people. People deploy cultural objects with the intention to channel behavior, but even objects imbued
with intentionality can also be creatively enunciated for resistance and play. Aesthetic experiences of
resonance, iconicity, and attachments trigger our emotions and propel us to see the world anew. Objects
constitute the grounds for action, often operating with their own politics and morality. Scholarship
should deepen our understanding of how meaning directs action through more rigorous empirical tests
of mechanisms of meaning-making (Rawlings & Childress 2019, 2021; Zhou 2022) and better
operationalize our cultural measurements of objects (Mohr et al. 2020).
This third wave of cultural sociology is primed to put cultural objects and cognition into productive
dialogue. The rise of cognitive sociology powerfully shaped understanding of culture in action but thus
far has typically sidelined objects. This is puzzling, given the role of objects in off-loading memory and
information, scaffolding meaning and action, stabilizing classification, and distributing cognition.
Research that synthesizes insights on objects with our knowledge of enculturation, embodied cognition,
and sense-perception offers an incredibly promising direction for future work—how do different somatic
and sensory experiences shape meaning-making processes and schema-formation? The question of
whether people's beliefs can change is fundamentally a matter of how cultural objects engage automatic
or deliberative cognitive processes. This space is primed for innovative scholarship.
Renewed attention to objects productively bridges production and reception work with explanatory
accounts of culture in action. Taking up this charge requires us to think ecologically (Domínguez Rubio
2016, 2020). Cultural objects exist in a “system of action,” operating through chains of “agency, intention,
causation, result, and transformation” (Gell 1998, p. 6). By tracing the “social life” of objects (Appadurai
1986, Kopytoff 1986), across their creation, production, circulation, and reception (Benzecry
2022; Childress 2017; Griswold 1986, 2000; McDonnell 2016), cultural sociologists can evince the
complex interactions of people, objects, and institutional settings that uphold or shake up social life.

disclosure statement

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be
perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
acknowledgments

Thanks to those who generously offered me feedback on this manuscript: David Gibson, Fiona
Greenland, Wendy Griswold, Erin Metz McDonnell, Ann Mische, Kelcie Vercel, and the Culture Workshop
at the University of Notre Dame. This article has been informed by numerous conversations. Many
thanks to my interlocutors: Dominik Bartmanski, Mike Owen Benediktsson, Fernando Domínguez Rubio,
Joe Klett, Omar Lizardo, Gemma Mangione, and Iddo Tavory. Finally, thanks to my research assistant,
Taylor Hartson, who helped build the bibliography. Any errors are entirely my own.

literature cited

Akrich M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. . In Shaping Technology/Building Society:

Studies in Sociotechnical Change, ed. WE Bijker, J Law 205–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Alexander JC. 2003. The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology Oxford, UK: Oxford
Univ.Press
Alexander JC. 2008. Iconic consciousness: the material feeling of meaning. Environ. Plan. 26:782–
94
Angelo H 2021. How Green Became Good: Urbanized Nature and the Making of Cities and
Citizens Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Appadurai A. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Appadurai A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization Minneapolis: Univ.
Minn. Press
Auslander L 2012. Material culture. Travelling Concepts for the Study of Culture B Neumann, A
Nünning 353–70. Berlin: de Gruyter
Bail CA. 2012. The fringe effect: civil society organizations and the evolution of media discourse
about Islam, 2001–2008. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:7855–87
Bail CA. 2016. Cultural carrying capacity: organ donation advocacy, discursive framing, and social
media engagement. Soc. Sci. Med. 165:280–88
Barad K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to
matter. Signs 28:3801–31
Bargheer S. 2018. Moral Entanglements: Conserving Birds in Britain and Germany Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Barsalou LW. 2009. Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
B 364:1281–89
Bartmanski D. 2015. Modes of seeing, or, iconicity as explanatory notion: cultural research and criticism
after the iconic turn in social sciences. Sociologica 9:1 https://doi.org/10.2383/80392
Bartmanski D, Alexander JC 2012. Materiality and meaning in social life: toward an iconic turn in
cultural sociology. Iconic Power: Materiality and Meaning in Social Life JC Alexander, D
Bartmanski, B Giesen 1–12. London: Palgrave MacMillan
Bartmanski D, Woodward I. 2015. Vinyl: The Analog Record in the Digital Age London: Bloomsbury
Bartram R. 2021. Cracks in broken windows: how objects shape professional evaluation. Am. J.
Sociol. 126:4759–94
Becker H. 1982. Art Worlds 1982 Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Becker H. 2007. Telling About Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Beisel N. 1993. Morals versus art: censorship, the politics of interpretation, and the Victorian
nude. Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:2145–62
Benediktsson MO. 2018. Where inequality takes place: a programmatic argument for urban
sociology. City Commun 17:2394–417
Benediktsson MO 2022. In the Midst of Things: The Social Lives of Objects in the Public Spaces of
New York City Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Benjamin R. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. New York:
Polity
Benzecry CE. 2015. Restabilizing attachment to cultural objects. Aesthetics, emotions and
biography. Br. J. Sociol. 66:4779–800
Benzecry CE. 2022. The Perfect Fit: Creative Work in the Global Shoe Industry Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Benzecry CE, Domínguez Rubio F 2018. The cultural life of objects. Routledge Handbook of
Cultural Sociology L Grindstaff, MM Lo, J Hall 322–29. London: Routledge
Berezin M. 1994. Cultural form and political meaning: state subsidized theater, ideology, and the
language of style in fascist Italy. Am. J. Sociol. 99:1237–86
Binder A. 1993. Constructing racial rhetoric: media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap
music. Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:6753–67
Blumer H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Boehme J. 2014. From unknown to known objects: cultural knowledge in action Presented at
International Sociological Association Meeting Yokohama, Japan: July 17
Bonnell VE. 1999. Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters Under Lenin and Stalin Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice transl. R Nice Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
 Boutyline A, Soter LK. 2021. Cultural schemas: what they are, how to find them, and what to do
once you've caught one. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86:4728–58
Bowker GC, Star SL. 2000. Sorting Things Out Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Brett G. 2022. Dueling with dual-process models: cognition, creativity, and context. Soc.
Theory 40:2179–201
Cerulo KA. 1995. Identity Designs: The Sights and Sounds of a Nation New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Univ. Press
Cerulo KA. 2009. Nonhumans in social interaction. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:1531–52
Cerulo KA. 2018. Scents and sensibility: olfaction, sense-making, and meaning attribution. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 83:2361–89
Childress C. 2017. Under the Cover: The Creation, Production, and Reception of a
Novel Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Clark A, Chalmers D. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58:17–19
D'Andrade RG. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Davis JL. 2020. How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
de Certeau M. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life, transl. S Rendall Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
DeNora T. 2000. Music in Everyday Life Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
DeSoucey M. 2016. Contested Tastes: Foie Gras and the Politics of Food Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Dewey J. 1934. Art as Experience. New York: Penguin
DiMaggio P. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:263–87
Domínguez Rubio F 2014. Preserving the unpreservable: docile and unruly objects at
MoMA. Theory Soc 43:6617–45
Domínguez Rubio F 2016. On the discrepancy between objects and things: an ecological
approach. J. Mater. Cult. 21:159–86
Domínguez Rubio F 2020. Still Life: Ecologies of the Modern Imagination at the Art Museum Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Douglas M. 1996. Purity and Danger New York: Praeger
Douglas M, Isherwood B. 1979. The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of
Consumption New York: Basic Books
Dugandzic A. 2022. Reconnecting religion and community in a small city: how urban amenities
afford religious amenities. Sociol. Religion 83:434–58
Durkheim É 1995.. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life transl. KE Fields New York: Free Press
Emirbayer M, Mische A. 1998. What is agency?. Am. J. Sociol. 103:4962–1023
Friedman A. 2011. Toward a sociology of perception: sight, sex, and gender. Cult. Sociol. 5:187–
206
Gell A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Gibson JJ. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Gibson M. 2008. Objects of the Dead Melbourne, Aust: Melbourne Univ. Press
Gieryn TL. 2002. What buildings do. Theory Soc 31:135–74
Gold T. 2022. Contentious tactics as jazz performances: a pragmatist approach to the study of
repertoire change. Sociol. Theory 40:3249–71
Gomart E, Hennion A. 1999. A sociology of attachment: music amateurs, drug users. Sociol.
Rev. 47:1221–47
Greenland FR. 2016. Color perception in sociology: materiality and authenticity at the Gods in
Color show. Sociol. Theory 34:281–105
Greenland FR. 2021. Ruling Culture: Art Police, Tomb Robbers, and the Rise of Cultural Power in
Italy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Griswold W. 1986. Renaissance Revivals: City Comedy and Revenge Tragedy in the London
Theater, 1576–1980 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Griswold W. 1987. The fabrication of meaning: literary interpretation in the United States, Great
Britain, and the West Indies. Am. J. Sociol. 92:1077–17
Griswold W. 2000. Bearing Witness: Readers, Writers, and the Novel in Nigeria Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Griswold W, Mangione G, McDonnell TE. 2013. Objects, words, and bodies in space: bringing
materiality into cultural analysis. Qual. Sociol. 36:343–64
Guardian 2023. Gun safety on movie sets improved after Alec Baldwin shooting, experts say. The
Guardian Jan. 20. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/20/gun-safety-movie-
sets-alec-baldwin-rust-shooting
Halle D. 1993. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Hannerz U. 1992. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning New York:
Columbia Univ. Press
Hebdige D. 1983. Travelling light: one route into material culture. RAIN5911–13
Hebdige D. 1988. Subculture: The Meaning of Style London: Routledge
Hodder I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships Between Humans and
Things New York: Wiley
 Hutchins E. 1996. Cognition in the Wild Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Ignatow G. 2007. Theories of embodied knowledge: new directions for cultural and cognitive
sociology?. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 37:2115–35
Ingold T. 2007. Materials against materiality. Archeol. Dialogues 14:11–16
Jackson J. 2021. Marvel's Punisher
problem. Newsweek March10. https://www.newsweek.com/marvels-punisher-problem-
1574579
Jenkins H. 1992. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture London: Routledge
Jerolmack C, Tavory I. 2014. Molds and totems: nonhumans and the constitution of the social
self. Sociol. Theory 32:164–77
1. Jijon I. 2019. Toward a hermeneutic model of cultural globalization: four lessons from translation
studies. Sociol. Theory 37:2142–61
Johnson K. 2022. DALL-E 2 creates incredible images—and biased ones you don't see. Wired May
5. https://www.wired.com/story/dall-e-2-ai-text-image-bias-social-media/
Jordan J. 2015. Edible Memory: The Lure of Heirloom Tomatoes and Other Forgotten
Foods Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Kay T. 2022. Culture in transnational interaction: how organizational partners coproduce Sesame
Street. Theory Soc. 2022: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-022-09484-2
Keane W. 2003. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Lang. Commun. 23:409–25
Klett J. 2014. Sound on sound: situating interaction in sonic object-settings. Sociol.
Theory 32:2147–61
Kopytoff I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. The Social Life of
Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective A Appadurai 64–94. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Kuipers G. 2015. How national institutions mediate the global: screen translation, institutional
interdependencies, and the production of national difference in four European countries. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 80:5985–1013
Latour B. 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane
artifacts. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change WE Bijker, J
Law 151–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory Oxford, UK:
Oxford Univ. Press
Latour B. 2009. A collective of humans and nonhumans: following Daedalus's labyrinth. Readings
in the Philosophy of Technology DM Kaplan 174–215. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Lembo A. 2020. He heard, she heard: toward a cultural sociology of the senses. Sociol.
Forum 35:2443–64
 Lembo A, Martin JL. 2022. The structure of cultural experience. Poetics 91:101562
Lena JC. 2019. Entitled: Discriminating Tastes and the Expansion of the Arts Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Leschziner V, Green AI. 2013. Thinking about food and sex: deliberate cognition in the routine
practices of a field. Sociol. Theory 31:2116–44
Lizardo O. 2017. Improving cultural analysis: considering personal culture in its declarative and
nondeclarative modes. Am. Sociol. Rev. 82:88–115
Lizardo O, Strand M. 2010. Skills, toolkits, contexts and institutions: clarifying the relationship
between different approaches to cognition in cultural sociology. Poetics 38:204–27
Lloyd R. 2006. Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City London: Routledge
Lynch KD. 2009. Objects, meanings, and role identities: the practices that establish association in
the case of home-based employment. Sociol. Forum 24:176–103
Mangione G. 2016. Making sense of things: constructing aesthetic experience in museum gardens
and galleries. Museum Soc 14:133–51
Martin JL. 2011. The Explanation of Social Action Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
McDonnell TE. 2010. Cultural objects as objects: materiality, urban space, and the interpretation
of AIDS media in Accra, Ghana. Am. J. Sociol. 115:61800–52
McDonnell TE. 2014. Drawing out culture: productive methods for measuring cognition and
resonance. Theory Soc 43:247–74
McDonnell TE. 2016. Best Laid Plans: Cultural Entropy and the Unraveling of AIDS Media
Campaigns Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
McDonnell TE, Bail CA, Tavory I. 2017a. A theory of resonance. Soc. Theory 35:11–14
McDonnell TE, Jonason A, Christoffersen K. 2017b. Feeling red and wearing pink: trajectories of
cultural power in AIDS and breast cancer ribbons. Poetics 60:11–15
Miller D. 2005. Materiality Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Miller D. 2009. The Comfort of Things New York: Polity
Miller D, Woodward S. 2012. Blue Jeans: The Art of the Ordinary Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Mische A. 2009. Projects and possibilities: researching futures in action. Sociol. Forum 24:3694–
704
Mohr J, Bail CA, Frye M, Lena JC, Lizardo O et al. 2020. Measuring Culture New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Molotch H. 2003. Where Stuff Comes From. London: Routledge
Mukerji C. 1994a. Toward a sociology of material culture: science studies, cultural studies and
the meanings of things. The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives D
Crane 143–62. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
 Mukerji C. 1994b. The political mobilization of nature in seventeenth-century French formal
gardens. Theory Soc. 23:651–77
Mukerji C. 2009. Impossible Engineering: Technology and Territoriality on the Canal du
Midi Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Nagy P, Neff G. 2015. Imagined affordance: reconstructing a keyword for communication
theory. Soc. Media Soc. 1:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603385
Nippert-Eng CE. 1995. Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries Through Everyday Life Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Norman DA. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things New York: Basic Books
Oberlin C. 2020. Creating the Creation Museum: How Fundamentalist Beliefs Come to Life New
York: NYU Press
Olave MAT. 2020. Book love. A cultural sociological interpretation of the attachment to
books. Poetics 81:101440
Park BY, Abecassis A, Revel M. 2021. Varieties of resonance: the subjective interpretations and
utilizations of media output in France. Poetics 88:101597
Patterson O. 2014. Making sense of culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40:1–30
Peirce CS. 1992. The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, Vol. 1 Bloomington:
Indiana Univ. Press
Peterson R. 1997. Creating Country Music: Fabricating Authenticity Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Pickering A. 2010. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Pinch T. 2008. Technology and institutions: living in a material world. Theory Soc. 37:5461–83
Pinch TJ, Bijker WE. 1984. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of
science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc. Stud. Sci. 14:3399–441
Preda A. 1999. The turn to things: arguments for a sociological theory of things. Sociol.
Q. 4:2347–66
Radway J. 1991. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature Chapel Hill: Univ. N.
C. Press
Rawlings CM, Childress C. 2019. Emergent meanings: reconciling dispositional and situational
accounts of meaning-making from cultural objects. Am. J. Sociol. 124:61763–809
Rawlings CM, Childress C. 2021. Schemas, interactions, and objects in meaning-making. Sociol.
Forum 36:1446–77
Rochberg-Halton E. 1982. Situation, structure, and the context of meaning. Sociol. Q. 23:4455–
76
Rogers EM. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations New York: Free Press. , 5th ed..
 Romano A. 2023. Alec Baldwin's criminal charges and Rust's chaotic production,
explained. Vox Jan. 31. https://www.vox.com/culture/23562397/rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-
involuntary-manslaughter-charge
Rossman G. 2012. Climbing the Charts: What Radio Airplay Tells Us About the Diffusion of
Innovation Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Schudson M. 1989. How culture works: perspectives from media studies on the efficacy of
symbols. Theory Soc 18:153–80
Schwarz O. 2015. The sound of stigmatization: sonic habitus, sonic styles, and boundary work in
an urban slum. Am. J. Sociol. 121:1205–42
Simko C, Cunningham D, Fox N. 2022. Contesting commemorative landscapes: Confederate
monuments and trajectories of change. Soc. Probl. 69:591–611
Simmel G 1997. Simmel on Culture D Frisby, M Featherstone London: SAGE
Solaroli M. 2015. Iconicity: a category for social and cultural
theory. Sociologica 9:1 https://doi.org/10.2383/80391
Sonnevend J. 2020. A virus as an icon: the 2020 pandemic in images. Am. J. Cult. Sociol. 8:3451–61
Star SL, Griesemer JR. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs
and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19:387–
420
Stoltz DS, Taylor MA. 2017. Paying with change: the purposeful enunciation of material
culture. Poetics 64:26–39
Surak K. 2013. Making Tea, Making Japan: Cultural Nationalism in Practice Stanford, CA:
Stanford Univ. Press
Swidler A. 1986. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 51:273–86
Swidler A. 1995. Cultural power and social movements. Social Movements and Culture H
Johnston, B Klandermans 25–40. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Swidler A. 2001. Talk of Love Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Tavory I. 2016. Summoned: Identification and Religious Life in a Jewish Neighborhood Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Tavory I, Swidler A. 2009. Condom semiotics meaning and condom use in rural Malawi. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 74:2171–89
Taylor MA, Stoltz DS, McDonnell TE. 2019. Binding significance to form: cultural objects,
cognition, and cultural change. Poetics 73:11–16
Vaisey S. 2009. Motivation and justification: a dual process model of culture in action. Am. J.
Sociol. 114:1675–715
Vercel KL. 2021. Feels like home: how home stagers construct spatial rhetorics to persuade
homebuyers. Consum. Markets Cult. 6:545–74
Wagner-Pacifici R. 2017. What Is an Event? Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Wagner-Pacifici R, Schwartz B. 1991. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: commemorating a
difficult past. Am. J. Sociol. 97:376–420
Wherry F. 2008. Global Markets and Local Crafts: Thailand and Costa Rica Compared Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
Winchester D. 2016. A hunger for God: embodied metaphor as cultural cognition in action. Soc.
Forces 95:2585–606
Winchester D. 2017. ‘A part of who I am’: material objects as ‘plot devices’ in the formation of
religious selves. J. Sci. Study Religion 56:183–103
Winner L. 1980. Do artifacts have politics?. Daedelus 109:1121–36
Wohl H. 2015. Community sense: the cohesive power of aesthetic judgment. Sociol.
Theory 33:4299–326
Wolff J 1992. Excess and inhibition: interdisciplinarity in the study of art. Cultural Studies L
Grossberg, C Nelson, PA Treichler 706–18. London: Routledge
Wood M, Stoltz DS, Van Ness J, Taylor MA. 2018. Schemas and frames. Sociol. Theory 36:3244–
61
Woodward I. 2007. Understanding Material Culture Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Zerubavel E. 1991. The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Zhou D. 2022. The elements of cultural power: novelty, emotion, status, and cultural capital. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 87:5750–81
Zubrzycki G. 2011. History and the national sensorium: making sense of Polish mythology. Qual.
Sociol. 34:21–57
Zubrzycki G. 2013. Aesthetic revolt and the remaking of national identity in Quebec, 1960–
1969. Theory Soc 42:423–75
Zubrzycki G. 2017. National Matters: Materiality, Culture, Nationalism Stanford, CA: Stanford
Univ. Press