August 11, 2011
Borrowing from artistic categories: the role of permeability
and distances
Thije Schaap*
Department of Strategy and Innovation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, P.O. Box 800, The Netherlands
Abstract
Categorical borrowing is widely recognized as an important source for novelty creation, yet the classificatory mechanisms that govern processes of exchange between genres have not been specified previously. In this article, I augment DiMaggio‟s conceptual framework of classifications in art by introducing permeability and distances as central concepts for explaining the legitimacy of borrowing in genres. Two conditions of permeability (i.e. relatively closed and relatively open genres) and five types of distances (i.e. aesthetic, ideological, social, economic and hierarchical) are distinguished. Drawing on qualitative data derived from a theory-based sample selection of genres in the Dutch electronic music field, I ask how permeability and distances affect categorical borrowing in genres. Analyzing the functioning and meaning of boundaries, boundary objects, practices and routines, boundary work, and practice work in genres, I found three distinct effects of permeability and distances: 1) impermeable boundaries prevent categorical borrowing, 2) conflicting distances preclude categorical borrowing, even when boundaries are permeable, and 3) permeable boundaries and proper distances enable categorical borrowing in a genre. Hence, impermeable boundaries can be considered as a sufficient condition for borrowing not to occur. When boundaries are permeable, the working of distances determines from which categories borrowing takes place. These findings comprise an important theoretical contribution and can be a promising starting place for further exploration of categorical borrowing in or between a wide range of fields dealing with the consumption of symbolic goods.
1. Introduction
Cultural fields in general offer creative products that are vulnerable to rapid obsolescence, and whose chances of success are highly unsure, ambiguous, and contradictory (Hirsch, 1972). Innovative products are therefore in great demand, and consumption is often driven by a hunt for novelty (Lampel et al. 2000). Artists frequently search for novelty by borrowing and recombining the aesthetic and artistic principles of distinct genres (Regev, 2002). Such blending processes might result in stylistic variations (Gilmore, 2000), genre innovations (Perretti and Negro, 2007), or even processes of boundary erosion (Hannan and Freeman, 1989; Johnston and Baumann, 2007; Rao et al., 2005). Borrowing could therefore pay off by increasing audience appeal or opening up new realms of production. Yet, when artists misinterpret the principal rules and norms of „their‟ genre (Frith, 1996), borrowing could cause strong devaluations or reputational sanctions as well (Hesmondhalgh, 1998a; Lena and Peterson, 2008; Zuckerman and Kim, 2003). Because classification systems are socially constructed (Durkheim, 2008; Zhao, 2005), genres differ in their receptivity for the inclusion of distinct elements. Likewise, there is no reason to expect that in genres, which „allow‟ borrowing as such, elements from all types of categories can be included. Yet, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the classificatory mechanisms affecting borrowing within genres1. In this study, I therefore explore when categorical borrowing is more or less likely to occur in genres and how this is related to the classification of distinct categories within a larger cultural field.
* Tel: * ; e-mail address: * ; student number: * ; address: *.
I build upon DiMaggio‟s (1987) influential work on classifications in cultural fields. His framework provides valuable insights for understanding opportunities for thematic innovations by means of exchange between categories. Principal are his conceptions on processes of sense-making and boundary-defining activities in genres. Extending his work, I distinguish two classificatory mechanisms that are considered to affect borrowing activity in genres: 1) the
permeability of the categorical boundary as maintained by genre members who may stress
categorical purity or permit „impure‟ elements from outside the category, and 2) the perceived and interpreted distances of distinct categories as possible domains for exchange.
The conception of permeability thus indicates if categorical borrowing is allowed within a genre, while distances specify from which categories borrowing is more likely to occur2. Because still little scholarly attention has been paid to the classificatory mechanisms that clarify borrowing activity within genres, I elaborate on the concepts of permeability and distances for addressing this gap. To exemplify the contribution of my theoretical propositions I use the contemporary Dutch electronic music industry as a case3. This study therefore addresses the following key question: How do permeability and distances affect categorical borrowing in genres in the contemporary Dutch electronic music field?4 To answer this question, I consider the way in which artists, genre participants and field members (including producers, DJs, record label owners, event/club promoters, managers of booking agencies, and other field experts) interpret and assess these two focal dimensions for genres in this cultural field.
2. The legitimacy of borrowing in genres: boundary and distancing explanations
In the light of cultural fields, research on artistic categories has been concentrated on the alignment of social categories and aggregate-level aesthetics (Bourdieu, 1987; DiMaggio, 1992), symbolic boundary lines indicating social group identity (Lamont, 1992), discussions regarding the homology of lifestyle and subcultures (Thornton, 1995), and genre dynamics through artistic classification systems (DiMaggio, 1987). These different approaches share a collective concern in the processes by which categories are originated, recognized, and utilized, as well as how categorical boundaries constrain or enable social interaction (Donze, 2011). However, processes of change and (or through) exchange with respect to artistic categories have received less attention. Although efforts have been made in other domains (Pachucki et al., 2007), analyses tend to reify categories, thereby relegating the cultural meaning of categories to a secondary aspect of the system (Lena and Peterson, 2008). In this article, I therefore build on the conceptual and theoretical application of genres in order to better understand the classificatory mechanisms regulating the processes of exchange between genres.
Scholars in the sociology of art usually refer to genres as “sets of artworks classified together on the basis of perceived similarities” (DiMaggio, 1987: 441). Genres are seen as cognitive devices that facilitate the understanding of the characteristics of artists and their output, representing the symbolic boundaries in a field (Becker; 1982; Bourdieu, 1993; DiMaggio, 1987; Ollivier, 1997; Peterson, 1997). Audiences, artists, and other institutions involved in the production of cultural goods, produce, reproduce and use genres (Orosa Paleo et al., forthcoming) in order to evaluate cultural producers and their products by supplying “standards for appreciating and evaluating cultural objects” (Crane, 1992; 112) that guide expectations. Genres‟ classificatory paradigms (Ross, 1997) include sets of assumptions, concepts, values, and routines (Nelson and Winter, 1982) that constitute a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them. As a result, genres force artists to follow particular
2 Following Becker (1982), I consider permeability not a static fact or an absolute condition, but as an indicator of how genre boundaries are maintained by its members.
modes of understanding and behavior, creating lines of consistency in human thought and action (DiMaggio, 1997; Douglas, 1966)5.
However, genres differ in their symbolic persistence. Social system theory (e.g. Luhmann, 1995) helps us to understand that genres can be durable, but vulnerable as well. A genre, as a social system, contains not only works of art but also rituals, customs, artefacts and a common language, based on established and embedded social rules that structure its social interactions. These boundary objects (Carlile, 2002; Star and Griesemer, 1989) ensure the functioning of the genre while they at the same time constitutes a genre‟s boundaries, allowing for focused and effective communication within a community (Dolfsma et al., forthcoming). Boundary objects are thus not only employed for connection, but also for separating an inside from an outside (Baumann, 2007; Carlile, 2002), such that they simultaneously buffer and bridge (Dolfsma et al., forthcoming). However, communication within or across boundaries, whether verbal or non-verbal, inherently entails the risk of ambiguity. Luhmann (1995) argued that communication across boundaries may particularly „irritates‟ a system, as a system may not allow external information crossing its boundary or may not exhibit schemata for the interpretation of outside information or proper behavior (Dolfsma et al., forthcoming). Moreover, genres are vulnerable as artists‟ understanding of genre rules, values and norms may be incomplete, inaccurate, or manipulated (Dolfsma and Verburg, 2008). Yet, whether information crossing a genre‟s boundaries „irritate‟ or upset a genre can only be understood in terms of the language of a receiving system.
Genre rules, and their interpretation and use by artists, are thus essential for understanding exchange between genres. They provide “prefabricated meanings at the genre level, dictating the process of rule testing, bending, and breaking that guides the creative process” (Frith, 1996; 93-94), which are internalized to be a shared culture in what system theorist Boulding (1956) called a process of „cultural transmission‟. Of focal interest here is that such evaluative profiles can also apply for individual aesthetic elements (Van Venrooij, 2009). When aesthetic elements are clearly assigned to or appropriated by a genre, they are likely to be recognized and associated as distinctively belonging to a category and elicit similar symbolic classifications in terms of low/high, good/bad, authentic/banal, male/female, mainstream/underground, black/white etc. (Bourdieu, 1987; Hesmondhalgh, 1998b; Lena, 2004; McLeod, 2001; Negus, 1999; Peterson, 1997).6 The classification of distinct aesthetic elements as such, inherently results in the construction of prescriptions and rules for using them.
2.1 Permeability of the genre’s boundaries: closed and open genres
DiMaggio (1987) distinguishes two boundary conditions that are likely to affect the
permeability of genre boundaries. First, artistic classifications of genres differ in the degree to
which boundaries are ritualized. Strongly bounded classifications are typified “by the clustering of tastes within ritual boundaries and by barriers that make it difficult for artists to move among genres” (DiMaggio, 1987: 441). Second, for classifications of genres to be strongly bounded, homogeneity in the way institutions and individuals classify and recognize a genre‟s boundaries is prerequisite. When boundaries are not universally shared they lack understanding and defined meaning, hence there is little agreement about what needs to be „protected‟ or maintained. Thus, according DiMaggio, low permeability requires high ritual strength within universally shared genre boundaries, while high permeability implies lower degrees of ritual strength within less universally shared classifications of boundaries. Building upon DiMaggio‟s work, I distinguish two ideal types of boundary conditions: 1) closed genres, and 2) open genres.
In closed genres attention is focused on the assumed unity and purity of the culture. Boundaries are relatively impermeable and remain strong to prevent „impure‟ elements crossing boundaries. Genre and non-genre elements are considered as two separate realms
5 Although many artists often do not want to be restricted by genre boundaries, their freedom of expression, as Becker (1982) wrote, is necessarily bounded by expectations of other artists, audiences, critics, experts, and diverse others engaged in the creation, distribution, and consumption of cultural products in a field (Hesmondhalgh, 2002).
(Dolfsma et al., 2005). Because people‟s orientation towards tastes is considered to affect the structure of their genre, the deliberate protection against intrusions in closed genres suggests strong tie connections that bind actors to a shared cultural taste (Bourdieu, 1987; Schultz and Breiger, 2010). Time commitment is often purposively and intensive, nurtured by a tightly integrated community linked by social symbols and representations (Lizardo, 2006). Closed genres contain „restricted codes‟, which are types of discourses that appear in tightly bounded communities in which everyone has access to the same fundamental assumptions (Schultz and Breiger, 2010). Restricted codes allow limited range of meanings and interpretations of a genre and imply powerful „narrow‟ forms of group cohesion based on what Ansell (1997: 362-364) calls “solidaristic mobilization”. Closed cultures thus exhibit relatively impermeable boundaries that are kept closed and possess „restricted conversion value‟ (Lizardo, 2006). Borrowing from distinct categories in such cases is therefore less likely to be expected or in exceptional cases to be more focused.
In contrast to closed cultures, open genres permit interaction, exchange and thus impurity. What DiMaggio (1987) does not explicate is that openness can be intentionally or unintentionally. Openness is an intentional boundary condition both in case genre members recognize the importance of interaction with other categories for novelty creation or diversity, typically found in highly uncertain environments (Leifer and Delbecq, 1978) or when non-genre elements need to be present in the context of a non-genre culture for the non-genre system to function (Dolfsma et al., 2005). But impurity might be unintentional as well, for example in case genre boundaries lack universality and are multi-interpretative (DiMaggio, 1987). In either case however, genre boundaries are permeable for external elements to cross. In such cases, genre rules and conventions are inherently characterized by more elaborated codes. Such codes stimulate personal introspection and individualism rather than absolute conformity. They are thus less bounded and limited in their emotive appeal and allow multiple interpretations of genre meaning. Therefore, social network theory suggests less strong ties to be found within boundaries of open cultures (Granovetter, 1973). Because open genres evidence a moderation of commitment in binding artists to tastes, a key possibility is that bonds between different groups might be solidified or bridges across conventional categorical boundaries might be constructed. This was the function of weak ties in Granovetter‟s (1973) theory, the concept that White (2008) denotes as „decoupling‟, and the process of bridging holes in Burt‟s conception of networks (2004) by linking different types of genres. Permeable boundaries thus not only enable the integration of external elements, they also increase opportunities for tie-connections across boundaries as they exhibit „generalized conversion value‟ (Lizardo, 2006).
Yet, Lamont and Molnár (2001) argued a less deterministic perspective on such typologies, indicating the relative permeability of boundaries: “some boundaries are weaker than others” (Bourdieu, 1987:182). This implies active boundary maintenance in genres, its essential feature being the permeability that allows exchange (Llewellyn, 1994). Active boundary maintenance suggests genre members to filter and process information to maintain a genre‟s identity in both physical and conceptual terms. Such processes involve inclusion and exclusion, but drawing boundaries can be ambiguous and haphazard as well (Dolfsma et al., 2005). Permeability can thus be seen as a necessary but insufficient concept for explaining categorical borrowing in genres.
2.2 Distances between genres
Yet, distance is not a dichotomous variable, though can be represented through various types. First, a certain degree of aesthetic distance between genres is likely to affect borrowing activity. Essentially, aesthetic distance concerns differences in the underlying (technical) principles of cultural productions of categories. That is, an artist might have aesthetic reasons for either inclusion or exclusion of categorical elements from distinct genres because those elements will be well suited and technically amenable or desirable or will be considered as pragmatically incompatible (Lena, 2004; Tagg, 1982). Lena (2006) for example showed that producers of rap music included samples and layers of instrumentation that were seen as easy to sample, but deliberately refused other musical elements due to the limits that contemporary recording techniques provided them and due to the differences in musical content, such as lyrical diversity (Peterson and Berger, 1975) and melodic and chordal structure (Dowd, 2000; Krumhansl, 2002). However, distance cannot solely be explained in an aesthetic manner. As DeNora (2002) argued, music affords a variety of conceptualizations whereby the musical and the non-musical become intertwined. Hence, categorical elements may contain connotations and meanings that may act as a basis for selection (Bourdieu, 1987; Peterson and Kern, 1996; Van Eijck, 2001). This type of symbolic inclusion or exclusion depicts the subjective process that orders taste within categories (Bryson, 1996). The process is a form of boundary work (Gieryn, 1983) that continuously recreates the negative, positive and neutral attitudes towards distinct categories and that define categorical elements as more or less acceptable in various situations.
Building upon the idea that categorical elements may hold meaning, fundamentally the
ideological distance between genres is likely to affect exchange. Because an ideology is a
“complex system of related ideas that combines an explanation of the world with normative prescriptions for behavior” (Baumann, 2007: 57), exchange between categories is likely to be affected by the extent categorical elements contain different ideological connotations. Multiple scholars have shown that differences and similarities in ideological conceptions can either strengthen or weaken boundaries between categories because of their ideas on for example political and moral issues, and cultural dimensions such as originality, specificity, seriousness, and use of technology (Bennett, 2004; DeNora, 1991; Johnston and Baumann, 2007; Montano, 2010; Peterson, 2005; Thornton, 1995). Peterson (1997), for example, showed that in the context of country music, boundaries between some sub genres loosened as they persisted to ideological conceptions of „authentic‟ production although they were aesthetically diverging. Yet, boundaries sharpened towards others as these moved away from the „authentic‟ way of production to „fabricated‟ methods and technologies that resulted in conflicting ideological ideas about what should represent true country music.
Moreover, when social differences (i.e. age, class, gender, ethnicity, cultural traditions) in a particular cultural context become associated with specific genres and are powerful enough to function as symbolic distinctions, they might create a certain degree of social distance between genres as well. The dynamic breath of social relations between distinct social groups in a given collectivity structures how those groups contest in the diffusion, production and exchange of alternative principles of classification (Barth, 1969; Erickson, 1996; Lamont and Molnár, 2002). McLeod (1999) for instance provided useful insights in how hiphop artists used musical fragments for meaning and identity to distinguish themselves or draw similarities to other artists with specific social standings. In this way, the refusal or deliberate selection of artists to use certain genre elements mimics social distinctions and tells audiences to which social group they belong or do not want to belong.
intermediaries, so that a small change is likely to involve multiple other changes (Becker, 1982).
Eventually, the former types of distances may provide bases for the emergence of
hierarchical distance between genres. Hierarchical classifications tend to operate in most
cultural fields where some categories are seen as more legitimate than others, whether it be based on aesthetical, ideological, social or economical meaning (Bourdieu, 1993; DiMaggio, 1992; Levine, 1990). So-called highbrow and lowbrow distinctions are likely to affect interaction between genres with different status positions, because vertical classifications appear together in patterned ways that blend together interpretative categories (such as aesthetic, ideology, social membership and capital) with evaluative categories (worthy or unworthy)(Allen and Lincoln, 2004). Bryson (1996) showed that members of high-status categories tend to dislike types of genres whose audiences have significantly lower levels of cultural capital and use a form of social stereotyping to reinforce simple dislike. DiMaggio (1982) described an ideological process in which members of high-status categories laying claim to a genre and purify it of those elements most appealing to members of low-status categories. Surprisingly, his findings also showed that members of some highbrow categories may be tolerant towards cultural forms disproportionally consumed by members of ethnic minorities or other marginalized groups, indicating a possible inversed relationship between distance and novelty perception. Levine (1990), on the contrary, provided evidence that members of low-status categories might distance themselves from high-status categories by rejecting forms of high-culture as well. Moreover, blending highbrow and lowbrow stylistic elements may be constrained as highbrow genres often entail aesthetic complexity, improvisation, and abstraction that may require a lengthy investment in cultural capital in order to appreciate, while lowbrow cultural forms are expected to be less demanding (Berghman and Van Eijck, 2009; Eikhof and Haunschild, 2007). Lastly, Anderson (2009), Hesmondhalgh (1998a), and Thornton (1995), among others, have shown that hierarchical distances may be founded upon both ideological and economic distinctions such as „underground versus mainstream‟ dynamics. Thornton (1995) for example argued that interaction between participants in small-scaled, independent sub genres and members of commercial categories in the British rave scene was constrained as the former defined the latter as inauthentic, feminized, and classed-down.
In sum, the concept of distances, the idea that (cultural) similarities and differences among categories provide bases for inclusion or exclusion of categorical elements, appears to be essential for understanding patterns of borrowing activity in genres. Fundamentally, distances tell us why artists in different types of genres (do not) borrow from categories to which they do not belong.
2.3 Measuring permeability and distances
In order to determine permeability and distances, and how these are underpinned by the interpretive schemes of genre and field members, the measurement of the following analytical constructs are key: 1) boundaries, 2) boundary objects, 3) routines and practices, 4) boundary work, and 5) practice work.
Essentially, we need to consider how boundaries, the distinctions that constitutes categories of objects, activities, or people (Lamont and Molnár, 2002), are interpreted and defined for a genre in terms of aesthetics, ideologies, social backgrounds, economics, and hierarchical standings. These distinctions function as tools by which genre members come to agree upon definitions of reality (Lamont and Molnár, 2002). They produce an intrinsic harmony for the interpretive schemes of genre members, such that ideas, aesthetics or activities that do not conform may be reconfigured or rejected (Dougherty, 1992). For example, when boundaries are strongly demarcated around a genre this may cause them to become “unresponsive to or isolated from developments in their external environment” (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010: 190). This might create contradictions between the norms and values legitimate in the focal genre and those accepted in distinct genres, which are likely to affect exchange between categories. Hence, boundaries, as a shared system of meaning, not only indicate whether external elements are allowed to be integrated in a genre (i.e. permeability), yet also indicates the selective filtering process that determines how elements from distinct genre worlds are understood (i.e. distances).
But more is needed in order to grasp the working of permeability and distances in genres.
Boundary objects reveal how genre boundaries of the focal genre and those of distinct
objects used in several genre worlds, though might represent a different meaning in each of them (Star and Griesemer, 1989). Boundary objects may be abstract or concrete and are plastic enough to adapt to individual genre needs. Although their often different meanings among categories, their structure is common enough to most genre worlds to make them recognizable, as a mean of translation, interpretation and demarcation. Moreover, attention needs to be paid to the practices and shared routines in a genre. Practices and routines (Nelson and Winter, 1982) are recognized forms of activity that regulate behavioral patterns according to the situation, such as how to perform, behave, and innovate (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010). Genre members define the correctness of a routine or practice and provide ways to learn them; it must conform to the specific social rules of the genre.
Finally, boundary work and practice work in genres expose the role of permeability and distances. Boundary work entails the attempts of genre members to create, reinforce, expand, or undermine boundaries (Gieryn, 1983, 1999; Llewellyn, 1994). Activities focused on establishing boundaries to protect autonomy and control, for example, are likely to indicate impermeability, while boundary work concentrated on the selective management of cross-boundary connections in which certain cross-boundary objects “work to create a shared context” (Carlile, 2002) is likely to demonstrate the functioning of distances. Practice work, on the other hand, represents the efforts of genre members to create, maintain, or disrupt the sets of routines that are considered legitimate within the genre world. Thus, rather than the mere engagement of artists and genre members in certain routines and practices, practice work entails genre participants‟ attempts to affect the recognition and acceptance of routines. Boundary work and practice work are important constructs for understanding permeability and distances, as these indicate whether behavioral patterns in genres are allowed to be externally oriented (and regarding which external domains) or are supposed to be “habitual” (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010: 191) in a sense that artists are condemned to the selection among sets of established routines that reproduce extant norms and belief systems (Star and Griesemer, 1989).
In sum, I adopt an understanding of borrowing in genres, as social systems, in which boundaries, boundary objects and routines exist in a recursive relationship significantly affected by the boundary work and practice work of genre members. Boundaries (demarcated by boundary objects), and routines are distinct, interdependent characteristics of genres, with boundaries delimiting sets of legitimate routines (and how these are supposed to be executed), and routines supporting genre boundaries. These analytical concepts and their interplay are thus essential to capture the complexity of genre paradigms that enclose the underlying logic of “how” permeability and distances tend to regulate borrowing activity in genres. In the next sections, I provide empirical evidence of the functioning of permeability and distances as to explain how genre members and field members perceive and interpret categorical elements of distinct genres.
3. Data and methods
3.1 The case of the Dutch electronic music field
violations of social actors (Polos et al., 2002). However, most codes regulating social behavior are implicit or latent. In fields characterized by high demanding and critical audiences, code violations are more likely to become explicated and observable (Becker, 1982). Additionally, the participatory immediacy of the interplay between the DJ (i.e. an organizational form through which most electronic music is presented to its audiences) and the crowd makes code violations observable almost instantaneously (Jowers, 1999). Such a performance implies that the DJ/producer‟s success depends upon audience‟s responses to his productions and decisions in a process which involves a combination of interpretation, feeling, and evaluation (Frith, 1996). Both the importance of novelty creation by means of borrowing and the relative explicitness of code violations proves the value of the Dutch electronic music field as a case for exploring the effects of permeability and distances on categorical borrowing in genres.
3.2 Data and analysis
I used a mixed method design to examine how permeability and distances affect categorical borrowing in genres. The principle sources of information were 41 semi-structured (n = 41), in-depth interviews with key individuals in the Dutch Electronic Music field. The cognitive aspect and the salience of understanding the different “thought worlds” (Dougherty, 1992: 182) of genre participants and other field members was fundamental for making use of interviews as the main sources in this research. Moreover, during this research I have taken the role of what Merton (1988) called a dual-participant-observer: I was an enthusiastic participant of the electronic music field I was investigating. Since an early age, I have been interested and involved in electronic music and made my pathway through a plethora of genres and scenes. However, this auto-ethnographic approach entails certain limitations, such as my potential influence on the data. I tried to limit my influence on the data by ceding much of my power as an interviewer during the conversations and recorded events as they happened. I further supplemented and validated the data derived from the interviews, my personal experiences and observations with data from secondary source materials, such as information gathered from the attendance at electronic music conferences, industry reports, web publications, company documents, and industry discourses. This secondary source material not only limited my potential influence on data, but also extended my understanding of present field dynamics and provided accurate contextual information for conducting this study.
I composed a theory-based sample selection (Patton, 2001; Yin, 2009). Genres were selected on the basis on their potential representation and manifestation of three important theoretical constructs7: 1) borrowing does not occur due to the presence of impermeable genre boundaries, 2), borrowing does not occur due to the presence of conflicting distances, despite genre boundaries being permeable, and 3) borrowing does occur due to presence of permeable genre boundaries and proper distances. I selected three example genres from the field that reflected these theoretical constructs: two focal genres, genre I (i.e. a relatively closed genre), and genre II (i.e. a relatively open genre) and a third genre as a potential domain for borrowing, genre X8. Exchange activity among these genres was organized as follows: 1) genre I borrowed neither from genre II nor from genre X, 2) genre II did not borrow from genre I, and 3) genre II borrowed from genre X.
Interview selection was based on an extensive discursive analysis. For each genre, multiple artists were selected that appeared to be frequently and consistently linked to either genre I, genre II or genre X (n = 12). I further selected a sample of field members, including label managers, club owners, festival promoters, managers of major recording companies, music journalists, critics, radio dj‟s, lawyers and website editors (n = 29). I selected key informants who were well informed about the issues being researched and who made critical decisions concerning these issues (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Together, these field members are important contributors to the production of symbolic systems and are considered influential in the composition of the dominant standards of vision and division in a cultural field (Bourdieu, 1993). An important performative aspect of these field members is the creation and maintaining of genre boundaries in which artists are condemned to operate, and hence their
7 In the theory-based sample selection, I only sampled among those genres in which music is created for the commercial marketplace. I thus did not include non-profit and grant-based genres as these categories significantly differ in their organizational, financial, creative, and audience mechanisms from electronic music created in the commercial marketplace (Lena and Peterson, 2008). Electronic music genres solely crafted for the pop music market were excluded as well, since these generally have their distinguished genre characteristics purposely transformed in the interest of gaining wider appeal (Lena and Peterson, 2008).
interpretations provide valuable insights for understanding the meaning and functioning of categorical boundaries and distances.
The interviews were held in Dutch and duration ranged from 60 to 150 minutes. All interviews were conducted within the years 2008-2010 and were taped and transcribed9. The semi-structured interview protocols for both artists and field members existed of two parts. The first part of the interviews carried out among artists contained open-ended questions about self-categorization, domains of production, methods and routines, principle considerations for aesthetic construction and personal motivating factors. Moreover, questions concerned information about vision and value of innovation, the importance and sources of borrowing, and questions about successful attempt and failures. For field members, the first part concerned their main activities, self-categorization, contributions to field dynamics, domains of interest, personal motivations and musical appreciation patterns. The second part of the interview contained similar topics for both artists and field members regarding the interaction between genre I, genre II, and genre X. Of focal interest were respondents‟ typifications of the identified genres (values, artefacts, routines, social-economic characteristics of artists and audiences, hierarchical classifications, etc.), the interpretation of genre boundaries and corresponding field dynamics. Moreover, descriptions were asked of activities, relations and exchange among the different types of genres. I followed up with questions about borrowing activity within and among genres in terms of boundary conditions and classificatory mechanisms among genres to further deepen my understanding of such processes. I specifically focused on respondents‟ interpretations why some genres use borrowing techniques and others explicitly not, and how borrowing behavior of specific genres is related to their position vis-à-vis distinct categories. Finally, I asked respondents to provide examples of artists affiliated to one of the identified genres who appeared to be successful in categorical borrowing and examples of those that explicitly violated salient codes through such activities.
In analyzing the interviews, I paid special attention to interviewees‟ discourses on the concepts of: 1) boundaries: the distinctions that constitutes categories of objects, activities, or people (Lamont and Molnár, 2002), 2) boundary objects: collection of artefacts, either abstract or concrete, that individuals work with that have different meanings in different genre worlds (Carlile, 2002; Star and Griesemer, 1989), 3) practices and routines: recognized forms of activity belonging to a category (Nelson and Winter, 1982), 4) boundary work: efforts to create, reinforce, expand, or undermine boundaries (Gieryn, 1983 and 1999; Llewellyn, 1994), and 5) practice work: efforts to affect acceptance and recognition of sets of routines (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010). The data was triangulated, accentuating topics that were supported by the different data collection methods and that were confirmed by multiple informants (Yin, 2009). Interview transcripts were analyzed by searching for recurring words, themes, and core meanings, as well as the presence of positive, neutral, or negative expressions about borrowing and the selected genres. Statements and facts of interviewees were grouped with respect to different topics (pattern matching technique), which is especially useful if the research is an exploratory one (Yin, 2009). In so doing, topics about permeability and distances for different genres were clustered and the tabulation of the frequency of specific occurrences made it possible to discover patterns and regularities in the data. Conclusions were verified by re-reading the secondary data material searching for differences and similarities that might have been overlooked the first time (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The iteration between data and theory helped me to sharpen definitions, measures, relationships, and underlying theoretical arguments, which strengthens the internal validity of findings and raises the generalizeability of the emergent theory building exercise (Eisenhardt, 1989).
4. Results: the effects of permeability and distances on categorical borrowing
My research question asked how permeability and distances affect categorical borrowing in genres in the Dutch electronic music field. Based on the examination of the theoretical sample selection in this particular field, I found three distinct conditions in which permeability and distances affect borrowing: 1) genre I artists borrow neither from genre II nor from genre X, because genre I‟s boundaries are impermeable 2), genre II artists do not borrow from genre I due to the presence of conflicting distances, despite genre II‟s boundaries being permeable, and 3) genre II artists borrow from genre X as genre II‟s boundaries are permeable and the presence of proper distances enable borrowing. Hence, in a closed genre it is the very impermeability of
the genre boundary that prevents borrowing, while in an open genre distances either enable or prevent borrowing. I present findings from the two focal genres: genre I and genre II. Selected quotations relevant for how dynamics of permeability and distances are underpinned by the recursive relationship between boundaries, boundary objects, routines, boundary work, and practice work, are used as a basis for analysis.
4.1 The effects of impermeable boundaries: why genre I artists borrow neither from genre II nor from genre X
Data analysis shows several boundary dynamics in genre I that provide evidence for impermeability preventing borrowing to occur.
First, data analysis shows a clear tendency for members of genre I, in contrast to those of genre II, to define the genre against rather than among genre II and genre X. In other words, the main ideological goal of genre I seems to remain a separate and distinct domain of production without being combined with artistic principles of other genres, which indicates a type of ethnocentrism of art. Universally shared boundaries are used for clear demarcation and preservation of culture. Language used by artists and members of genre I indicate that Genre II and genre X are seen as a unity, a homogeneous “other” from which the genre “needs” to demarcate itself. This type of “otherness” seems to be based on a dislike of open, diverse, and in their perception “soft” categories that lack coherence, persistence and loyalty. Interviewees confirmed this anti-openness configuration by emphasizing the importance for genre I members to remain “distinct from other genres”, “independent”, and “not go along with mere fads and trends” (which does not imply the genre in not commercially exploited, yet in an isolated manner). The following quotes effectively capture the overall sentiment:
“Back then [mid and late 90‟s], we created [genre I] music because we didn‟t like any other [electronic] music, we found them too soft and boring. We needed something harder and louder that wasn‟t there yet… People [implicitly referring to those who were engaged in distinct genres] hated it, said it was no music at all, too simple… but that was just the cool thing about it… and today [genre I] is very big and commercial (Interviewee A: genre I DJ/producer)
“Most people who love [genre I] don‟t like any other genres [referring to other electronic music genres].” (Interviewee B: genre I record label manager)
“Many electronic music genres have become intertwined over the last couple of years, you‟ll hear all kinds of genres being mixed up… sometimes hard to say to which genre a track belongs… but there are some genres that don‟t go along… [genre I] is still [genre I], for example, they want to be pure, that‟s important for them … it has its very own sound” (Interviewee C: field journalist)
Second, secondary data shows that the genre‟s commercially exploitation reinforces the ideological conception of “otherness”. Boundary objects and identity markers are heavily exaggerated to prevent ambiguity of meaning. Interviewees agreed that the impermeability of the genre‟s boundaries is strongly related to the commercial exploitation of genre I by major record labels and event organizations. They explained that due to the commercial importance of the genre, audiences are large and expectations often homogeneous, leaving little room for experimentation. Borrowing will be considered as code violation, having severe reputational implications.
short breakdown, climax and reprise most often employed in the middle of the track (which allows little variation and experimentation), 4) samples; which generally connote aggressive themes, including violence, drugs, and profanity, perceptible though sampled lyrics that are often screamed, pitch shifted, and distorted (samples often include a strong dislike against other, softer, categories, including genre II and genre X), and 5) instruments; for example the hard, catchy, big room sawtooth leads and chord structures produced by specific synthesizers (such as particular sounds from the Virus Ti, Virus B, and Roland JP 8080 synthesizers, which are not used in any other genre).
“The concept is quite easy actually, it needs to be hard, loud, dark, and fast. Little has changed over the last decade. Listen to a record that is produced 10 years ago, and compare with a [genre I] track recently produced… you wouldn‟t notice much differences, but the concept still works” (Interviewee E: genre I record label owner) “No, I don‟t look to other genres for getting ideas for my productions… the most important thing about a new synthesizer or effect is that it‟s just capable of producing the [genre I] sound, or can make it even better” (Interviewee A: genre I Producer/DJ)
Fourth, non-musical boundary objects for boundary demarcation of genre I found in the data included promotional discourses (mostly dark and aggressive illustrations of flyers, websites, cover illustrations for releases, track and album naming etc.), locations of events (industrial, raw, and often suburban), and dancing style (a typical high speed dance, only used for dancing on genre I music). Analysis indicates that both musical and non-musical boundary objects function in a highly interrelated manner to maintain coherence, a common identity, and impermeable boundaries which forces experimentalism within rather than across boundaries. For example, specific effects and recording equipment assure hard, loud and industrial sounds, experiences and identity found in no other genre, the required high beats per minute enables the idiosyncratic way of dancing, samples used against other electronic music genres express shared meaning, etc.
“[Genre I] events need to be held in industrial underground type of locations, or at least, an industrial, raw feeling needs to be created… fire effects, a lot of stroboscopes and sometimes even broken cars, ship containers, barrels… all to create that typical [genre I] atmosphere… we organize our promotion in the same way, we mostly use dark colors, scary faces, that kind of stuff. Yes, really different compared to the events of different genres we organize.” (Interviewee F: manager Genre I event organization)
Fifth, Boundary work and practice work found in the data augmented the evidence for the effects of impermeable boundaries on borrowing. A recurring theme in the interviews with genre I artists was the importance of exemplary performers who seem to embody genre I‟s musical heritage and are used to inculcate the established as well as the rising generation of artists in the genre‟s history, rituals, and performance techniques. Artists explained that they constantly monitor the productions of these exemplary performers for “correct” application of production methods and usage of technology in order to create the typical genre I sounds and the “highest quality possible”. In other words, this case of boundary work illustrates that artists are supposed to follow well-established artistic principles, rather individual experimentation and borrowing.
“These guys [referring to certain exemplary performers] have really important studios… I think these studios are the best in our scene. They really know what they are doing with their expensive equipment to produce the real [genre I] sound. Difficult for other produces to keep up with this quality level, but everyone tries…”(Interviewee D: genre I DJ/producer)
“In the end you can have nothing but respect for these guys. They truly represent the lifestyle it is all about” (Biographical description of exemplary artist on major [genre I] record label website)
Another recurring topic on boundary work were so-called “single-genre events”. Interviewees explained that much borrowing activity is a result of multi-genre events where DJs from different genres are supposed to perform chronologically and therefore produce mixtures of genres in advance to be able to create smooth transitions between DJ-sets. However, club programmers and managers of event organizations explained that genre I only “allows” single-genre events and this prevents such reciprocality and cross-pollination to occur.
Finally, code violations were notoriously difficult to find. “It just don‟t happen” was not uncommon when asking interviewees about examples of artists who, despite the impermeable boundaries of genre I, attempted to engage in borrowing activities. A possible explanation is that impermeability entails high boundary clarity that makes the realm of production, in which genre I artists are legitimated to operate, unambiguous, and proves the salience of impermeable boundaries that prevent borrowing to occur.
“Artists in [genre I] I know only make [genre I] music. If they want to make different types of music, they need to do it secretly by using a different name, an alias, or producing music for other artists without anyone knowing it.” (Interviewee H: genre I producer/DJ)
Hence, the impermeable boundaries of genre I are clearly demarcated against genre II and genre X in order maintain restricted conversion value. Recursive boundaries, boundary objects, boundary work, routines and practice work in genre I prevent borrowing activity from genre II and genre X.
4.2 The effects of conflicting distances, even when boundaries are permeable: why genre II artists do not borrow from genre I
The case of genre II shows that the genre‟s boundaries may be permeable, yet the presence of conflicting distances prevents artists to borrow from genre I.
Data analysis yield that boundaries of genre II, in contrast to genre I, contain elaborated meanings and appeared to be multi-interpretive. When discussing the genre‟s boundaries, interviewees‟ responses such as: “it‟s always difficult to explain what [genre II] exactly is, it can take many directions” or “everyone has its own vision of [genre I]” indicate the overall sentiment that artists and genre participants are less purist in their boundary drawing. Indeed, interviewees present genre II more in terms of a template, which includes certain guidelines for productions to maintain affiliation with the genre, yet strongly emphasize the value of experimentation and “cross-over” activities. Musical and non-musical boundary objects were generally only loosely described, demonstrating the fundamental difference with the rigid and codified boundaries of genre I. For example, often the only mentioned musical boundary object was the genre‟s typical rhythmical structure that needs to create a complex, yet uplifting effect to get people “moving” by layering multiple “heavily processed” drum and percussion loops on top of each other. But this can be accomplished in many ways.
“Things have changed… in the past you were able to say, “ok, this is [genre II]”, but that‟s far more difficult now it‟s being mixed with all kind of other genres. In my opinion, it‟s not that important what [genre II] exactly is, as long as it is rolling, as it has the [genre II] feeling.” (Interviewee I: genre II DJ/producer and label manager) Interviewees confirmed that borrowing is one of the routines for novelty creation among which artists are allowed to choose, which indicates permeable boundaries, and is considered as an important motivating factor for “distinction”. The discourse of “adaptability”, “flexibility”, “discovery”, and “self-improvement” was omnipresent during the interviews. Individualism, in contrast to genre I, seems to be a key component, meaning the ability to recognize the proper aesthetic criteria and apply them in the “right” way. In so doing, artists consider distinct genres in the field individually (in contrast to genre I). As a genre II artist concisely explained:
“I use all kind of stuff from different tracks from different genres, I just sample whatever I like and use it in my productions, but my music always remains [genre II]-ish, just doing my own things with it.” (Interviewee J: genre II producer)
as uncodified and genre I‟s musical structure as strongly codified (aesthetic distance). These distance together originate a conflicting hierarchical distance: genre I is considered as “too simplistic”, “too formatted”, and “too predictable”, which they ascribe to its economic position and its focus on young people that have lower levels of cultural capital. In sum, interviewees‟ perceived genre II as predominantly represented among older people, who they consider as having higher levels of cultural capital, cultural refinement, tolerance and appreciation of genres that require the same qualities and are not corrupted by commercial values, and perceived genre I as merely intended for younger people, who are the more exclusive, have lower levels of cultural capital, value more “simplistic” music and care less about the participation of majors.
“Generally young people listen to that kind of music [genre I], often when they‟re new to electronic music, because it‟s exciting. When I started listening electronic music, I also listened to genre like [genre I], it‟s just one of the first types of electronic music you‟re confronted with. I soon started to explore other electronic music genres, and discover these were far more interesting… I never listen to [genre I] music anymore. It‟s quite contradictory, you know, because actually because of [genre I] we started to listen to electronic music, maybe without [genre I] we would never have started loving electronic music, but now we laugh about [genre I]” (Interviewee K: manager genre II event organizer)
“When it becomes commercial and there emerges a format, I don‟t like it anymore. Everyone is then going make the same music… not what I‟m looking for.” (Interviewee L: genre II DJ/producer)
“When you‟re older you generally start liking other genres that are more interesting [than genre I]… not always the same hard beats, but much more variation and depth.”(Interviewee M: genre II label manager and producer) “Commercial electronic music, such as… [genre I] is very recognizable… the same melodies, instruments, synths over and over again. That‟s not the type of music I want to make.” (Interviewee J: genre II producer)
“Some producers remain safely in their comfort zone, just to please their audiences [talking about genre I among others]… Do the same trick over and over again, for the money, really that kind of narrow thinking (in Dutch: “hokjesgeest”), we don‟t do that [referring to contracting artists for his label]. (Interviewee N: genre II record label manager)
These conflicting distances seem to create a degree of disinterestedness among genre II artists and participants to get involved in genre I and therefore avoid any association with the genre. Indeed, the way most interviewees talked about genre I certainly revealed signs of not taken genre I seriously, or is, at least, not seen as a “desired” representation of electronic music genre, and thus, in so doing, they dismiss the preferences of genre I participants as inferior. This indicates a conflicting hierarchical distance in which genre II members are considered themselves as having high levels of cultural capital and occupational prestige and, exactly therefore, do not borrow elements of the lower status genre I.
When discussing potential categories for borrowing, some interviewees initially tended to mask distances towards genre I, indicating at the same time the salience of “openness” to them and the effect of distances on their “though worlds”. For example, when I asked a genre II artist about his perception of potential domains for borrowing, he responded: “That can be quite everything… it just depends on what I want to make”, and eventually: “well, except [genre I] or something like that, of course” (my italics). This illustrates the selective construction of their “though worlds” based on the interpretations of distances that include “worthy” and exclude “unworthy” genres, such as genre I. Conflicting distances thus reveal that genre II is not indiscriminately inclusive, rather genre II artists seem to borrow from high-status categories with similar conceptions of openness affiliated to its own social group (age), and neglect low-status categories popular among different social groups that hold oppositional ideological conceptions. Hierarchical distance between genre II and genre I, as interpreted by genre II participants, arises as cultural tolerance and openness are recognized as symbols of social status and therefore serves as a basis for categorical exclusion.
4.3 The effects of permeable boundaries and proper distances: why genre II artists borrow from genre X
Data analysis indicates that particularly the presence of aesthetic, social and economic distances play a crucial role in genre II artists‟ considerations to borrow categorical elements from genre X. Additionally, the absence of constraining ideological and hierarchical distances allows borrowing from genre X. When discussing the use of categorical elements of genre X within genre II, boundary objects most frequently cited by interviewees were: instrumentation and recording techniques, underground (economic) positioning, degree of innovativeness, context of consumption and the origins of the genre. Data analysis reveals that the interpretations of distances regarding genre X tend to work as follows: First, genre X is considered as having complex sound and chord structures created by specific effects and recording techniques in contrast to the predominantly rhythmic complexity of genre II (aesthetic distance). A recurring theme was genre X‟s typical and recognizable multi-layered synth chord-stab with extensive echo, reverb, and filter delay, that appeared to be technically amenable to create complex soundscapes and sound sculptures. Artists explained such elements draw attention to the depth and shape of the space between sounds by emphasizing the low bass and drum frequencies for adding “deepness”, “contemplativeness”, “melodic elements”, and “a down-tempo feeling” that are especially desirable in small underground venues, the more “deeper oriented” genre II events, or the early hours of a club night. Second, the origins of genre X lie in the suburban areas of London that is seen as an important breeding ground for “truly” innovative electronic music (social distance). Genre X‟s distinct origins seem to be associated with high-quality production and development of electronic music, because the foundation of many electronic music genres that are appreciated by genre II members lie in this geographic area. The region is therefore considered as one of the most important hotbeds for new “quality” and “experimental” electronic music and genre II artists are continuously monitoring this scene for new ideas and innovative concepts to include in their own productions. Third, genre X is generally considered as an avant-garde genre, not (yet) commercially exploited by industry-based organizations and artists, while genre II is seen as a firmly scene-based category (i.e. neither commercial nor avant-garde)(economic distance). This type of distance seems to function as an important condition to which a potential domain for borrowing needs to comply in order to become/remain interesting for genre II artists (such as genre X). Boundary work is explicit here: especially genres that are emergent and associated with experimentalism are considered as interesting domains for borrowing; once a distinct genre becomes commercially exploited it is no longer regarded as worthwhile, hence, disinterestedness emerges among artists and participation in that genre is likely to be seen as a code violation. Finally, ideological and hierarchical distances appear to be absent as both genres strongly value experimentation and openness, and reject format-based productions, including the “catchy” simplified use of instrumentation generally applied in most “mainstream” electronic music. Indeed, the way interviewees talked about genre X indicates the genre is being considered as an valuable contribution for the electronic music field. The intertwinement of the different types of distances thus results in genre X being properly positioned for borrowing and seems to create a degree of interestedness among genre II artists to get involved in genre X. The following quotations further illustrate the working of distances that enable genre II artists to borrow categorical elements from genre X:
“I use that kind of deep chords and melodic elements [genre X] especially when I have to do a gig in a small club or when I need to do one of the first sets at a party-night [referring to a DJ-set], when I can play more deeper stuff and the audience accepts the somewhat more difficult things… I can‟t do that at a large festival, because the music needs to be more funky or uplifting then… it‟s a different atmosphere, it wouldn‟t match.” (Interviewee I: genre II DJ/producer and label manager)
“Yes, [genre X] I consider genre X as one of the most innovative genres as the moment, actually as the only type of electronic music that really bring something new to the scene... most other genres are doing the same for years now… I‟m glad the genre is still very natural and real, but I‟m afraid there will emerge a format soon, and the music will be overused and commercial, as has happened with most genres.” (Interviewee C: field journalist) “The music [referring to genre X] is coming from a group of inspirational producers and collaborations in London, it‟s really flourishing there at the moment and some truly interesting developments are taking place there… all kind of quality stuff is coming from that place for years now.” (Interviewee O: club programmer)
“Excellent music, an important genre to keep an eye on… so we try to experiment with it here as well, giving our music a certain [genre X]-ish edge.” (Interviewee P: genre II record label manager)
context yields opportunities for novelty creation, as genre X at the same time retains a sense of connectedness to genre II with parallel expressions of taste and preferences. Genre X is thus seen as a cultural expression of qualities that are highly valued in genre II and represents a comparable “mode of openness” that is related to the possession of compatible cultural resources, as well as a shared perception of how to act, think, and feel in the cultural field at large. Genre X is exactly therefore used as a domain for borrowing.
In sum, the presence of proper aesthetic, social, and economic distances and the absence of constraining ideological and hierarchical distances enable borrowing in genre II, which boundaries are permeable. Distances, in this case, thus yield significant potential for novelty creation with respect to the established artistic principles of genre II (too much familiarity would neutralize the potential for novelty creation), yielding opportunities for novel combinations of complementary resources.
5. Conclusion
Although categorical borrowing is widely recognized as an important source for novelty creation (Hannan and Freeman, 1989), the underlying boundary dynamics regulating processes of exchange between categories have not been specified previously. I extend DiMaggio‟s framework of classifications in art by proposing permeability and distances as central concepts for explaining the legitimacy of categorical borrowing. I distinguished two forms of permeability (i.e. relatively closed and relatively open genres) and five types of distances (i.e. aesthetic, ideological, social, economic and hierarchical). The objective of this study was to examine how permeability and distances affect categorical borrowing in genres. My findings, analyzing a theory-based sample selection of genres from the Dutch electronic music field, indicate three distinct effects: 1) impermeable boundaries prevent borrowing to occur, 2) conflicting distances prevent borrowing to occur, even when boundaries are permeable, and 3) permeable boundaries and proper distances enable borrowing. Impermeable boundaries can thus be seen as a sufficient condition for borrowing not to occur in a genre, yet when a genre‟s boundaries are permeable, the interpretation of distances regulate from which genres borrowing occurs. I submit this as an important theoretical contribution this study makes.
I acknowledge there is a tremendous complexity in the patterns of categorical inclusion and exclusion and in the forces that generate these borrowing patterns in genres, such as the tension and paradox of innovation and control (i.e. to create novelty while also conforming to the conventions of a genre) inherent to most categories in cultural fields (Johnston and Baumann, 2007). The analysis of the theory-based sample selection identified above reflects only a small portion of this complexity. However, the theoretical argument of permeability and distances can be an important conceptual contribution to further analyze this complexity. The concepts can be promising starting places for both scholars in the sociology of art and cultural economists to formally explore explanations of novelty creation through categorical borrowing in a wide range of art worlds, cultural management or other fields dealing with the consumption of symbolic goods (Dolfsma, 2008).
for distinct categorical elements? And, are there mechanisms for changing the initial classifications condemned to categorical elements (i.e. adoption mechanisms), both production-wise and discursively?
Other interesting directions would be a more aggregate-level examination of the effects of permeability and distances on market and organizational dynamics, as these concepts are likely to play a key role in influencing such diverse phenomena as evaluations of categorical legitimacy and worth, market participants‟ attention, competitive positioning, and vital rates of individual actors, organizations and categorical populations (Hsu, 2005, Scott, 2008). By studying these matters, we could significantly contribute to the increasing interest in how categories are constructed and maintained through processes of exchange, a central issue in both ecological theory of cultural fields and Bourdieuan field theory (DiMaggio, 1987; Hsu et al., 2009; Lena and Peterson, 2008).
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Wilfred Dolfsma for his motivational way of supervising and his useful comments on earlier drafts for helping to improve this article.
References
Allen, M.P., Lincoln, A.E., 2004. Critical discourse and the cultural consecration of American films. Social Forces 82, 871–894.
Anderson, T.L., 2009. Understanding the alteration and decline of a music scene: observations from rave culture. Sociological Forum 24, 307-336.
Ansell, C.K., 1997. Symbolic networks: the realignment of the French working class 1887–1894. American Journal of Sociology 103, 359–390.
Bader, I., Scharenberg, A., 2010. The sound of Berlin: subculture and the global music industry. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34, 76-91.
Barth, F., 1969. Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference. Little Brown, Boston. Baumann, S., 2007. A general theory of artistic legitimation: how arts worlds are like social movements. Poetics 35,
47-65.
Becker, H., 1982. Art worlds. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Becker, M.C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., 2005. Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change 14, 775-791.
Bennett, A., 2004. Consolidating the music scenes perspective. Poetics 32, 223-234.
Bergman, M., Van Eijck, K., 2009. Visual arts appreciation patterns: crossing horizontal and vertical boundaries within the cultural hierarchy. Poetics 37, 348-365.
Boulding, K. E., 1956. General systems theory: the skeleton of science. Management Science 2, 197-208. Bourdieu, P., 1987. Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Bourdieu, P., 1993. The field of cultural production. Columbia University Press, New York.
Bryson, B., 1996. “Anything but heavy metal”: symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes. American Sociological Review 61, 884–899.
Burt, R., 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110, 349–399.
Carlile, P.R., 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13, 422-455.
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., 2008. A core/periphery perspective on individual performance: social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organizational Science 19, 824-844.
Crane, D., 1992. The production of culture. Newbury Park CA, Sage.
DeNora, T., 1991. Musical patronage and social change in Beethoven‟s Vienna. American Journal of Sociology 97, 310– 346.
DeNora, T., 2002. Music into action. Poetics 30, 19–33.
DiMaggio, P., 1982. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: the creation of an organizational base for high culture. Media, Culture, and society 4, 33-50.
DiMaggio, P., 1987. Classification in art. American Sociological Review 52, 440-455.
DiMaggio, P., 1992. Cultural boundaries and structural change: the extension of the high culture model to theater, opera, and the dance, 1900–1940. In: Lamont, M., Fournier, M. (Eds.), Cultivating differences: symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 21–57.
DiMaggio, P., 1997. Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology 23, 263-287.
DiMaggio, P., Hirsch, P.M., 1976. Production organizations in the arts. American Behavioral Scientist 19, 735-752. Dolfsma, W., 2008. Paradoxes of modernist consumption – reading fashion in “Consuming symbolic goods: identity
and commitment, values and economics” Edited by Wilfred Dolfsma. Routledge UK, Abingdon.
Dolfsma, W., Verburg, R., 2008. Structure, agency, and the role of values in processes of institutional change. Journal of Economic Issues 42, 1031-1054.
Dolfsma, W., Finch, J., McMaster, R., 2005. Market and society: how do they relate, and how do they contribute to welfare? Journal of Economic Issues 39, 337-356.
Dolfsma, W., Finch, J., McMaster, R., 2011 (Forthcoming). Identifying institutional vulnerability: the importance of language, and system boundaries. Journal of Economic Issues.
