Annual Reviews Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Annual Review of Sociology

The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences
Author(s): Michle Lamont and Virg Molnr

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28 (2002), pp. 167-195
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069239
Accessed: 10-01-2016 18:48 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.177.218.24 on Sun, 10 Jan 2016 18:48:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:167-95

doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
Copyright? 2002 by AnnualReviews. All rights reserved
THE STUDYOF BOUNDARIESIN THE

SOCIAL SCIENCES
MicheleLamont and ViragMolnar
Departmentof Sociology, Princeton University,Princeton,New Jersey 08540;

e-mail: Mlamont@princeton.edu,vmolnar@phoenix.princeton.edu
Key Words
culture, identity, inequality, community, borders
* Abstract In recent years, the concept of boundaries has been at the center of
influential research agendas in anthropology,history, political science, social psychology, and sociology. This article surveys some of these developments while describing
the value added provided by the concept, particularlyconcerning the study of relational
processes. It discusses literatures on (a) social and collective identity; (b) class, ethnic/racial, and gender/sex inequality; (c) professions, knowledge, and science; and (d)
communities, national identities, and spatial boundaries. It points to similar processes
at work across a range of institutions and social locations. It also suggests paths for
furtherdevelopments, focusing on the relationship between social and symbolic boundaries, cultural mechanisms for the production of boundaries, difference and hybridity,
and cultural membership and group classifications.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the idea of "boundaries" has come to play a key role in important
new lines of scholarship across the social sciences. It has been associated with
research on cognition, social and collective identity, commensuration, census categories, cultural capital, cultural membership, racial and ethnic group positioning,
hegemonic masculinity, professional jurisdictions, scientific controversies, group
rights, immigration, and contentious politics, to mention only some of the most
visible examples. Moreover, boundaries and its twin concept, "borders," have been
the object of a number of special issues in scholarly journals, edited volumes, and
conferences (e.g., for a list in anthropology, see Alvarez 1995; for sociology, see
the activities of the Symbolic Boundaries Network of the American Sociological
Association at http://www.people.virginia.edu/-bb3v/symbound).
This renewed interest builds on a well-established tradition since boundaries
are part of the classical conceptual tool-kit of social scientists. Already in The
Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim (1965) defined the realm of the
sacred in contrast to that of the profane. While Marx often depicted the proletariat
as the negation of the capitalist class, The Eighteenth Brumaire (Marx 1963) is
0360-0572/02/0811-0167$14.00
167
168
LAMONT* MOLNAR
still read for its accountof the dynamicsbetween severalclass boundaries.As for
Weber,his analysis of ethnic and status groups continues to stand out as one of
the most influentialsections in Economyand Society (1978) (on the historyof the
concept, see Lamont2001a and Schwartz1981).
Unsurprisingly,the multifariousrecent developmentsaroundthe concept of
boundarieshave yet to lead to syntheticefforts.Greaterintegrationis desirablebecause it could facilitatethe identificationof theoreticallyilluminatingsimilarities
and differencesin how boundariesare drawnacross contextsand types of groups,
and at the social psychological, cultural,and structurallevels. Whereasempirical
researchalmost always concerns a particulardependentvariableor a subareaof
sociology, focusing on boundariesthemselves may generate new theoreticalinsights abouta whole rangeof generalsocial processespresentacrossa wide variety
of apparentlyunrelatedphenomena-processes such as boundary-work,boundary
crossing, boundariesshifting, and the territorialization,politicization,relocation,
and institutionalizationof boundaries.We do not pretendto provide such a grand
synthesis in the limited space we have at our disposal:Given the currentstage of
the literature,such a summing-upis impossible, at least in a review article format. Instead,we endeavorto begin clearing the terrainby sketchingsome of the
most interestingand promisingdevelopmentsacross a numberof disciplines. We
also highlight the value added broughtby the concept of boundariesto specific
substantivetopics, and we point to a few areasof possible theorybuilding.These
tasks are particularlyimportantbecause citationpatternssuggest thatresearchers
who drawon the concept of boundariesare largely unawareof the use to which it
is put beyond theirown specialties and across the social sciences.
One generaltheme thatrunsthroughthis literatureacross the disciplines is the
searchfor understandingthe role of symbolic resources(e.g., conceptualdistinctions, interpretivestrategies,culturaltraditions)in creating,maintaining,contesting, or even dissolving institutionalizedsocial differences(e.g., class, gender,race,
territorialinequality). In order to capturethis process better,we think it is useful to introducea distinctionbetween symbolic and social boundaries.Symbolic
boundariesareconceptualdistinctionsmadeby social actorsto categorizeobjects,
people, practices,and even time and space. They are tools by which individuals
andgroupsstruggleover andcome to agreeupon definitionsof reality.Examining
them allows us to capturethe dynamic dimensions of social relations, as groups
compete in the production,diffusion, and institutionalizationof alternativesystems and principlesof classifications.Symbolic boundariesalso separatepeople
into groups and generate feelings of similarityand group membership(Epstein
1992, p. 232). They are an essential mediumthroughwhich people acquirestatus
and monopolize resources.
Social boundariesare objectifiedforms of social differencesmanifestedin unequal access to and unequaldistributionof resources(materialand nonmaterial)
and social opportunities.They are also revealed in stable behavioralpatternsof
association,as manifestedin connubialityandcommensality.Only when symbolic
boundariesare widely agreedupon can they take on a constrainingcharacterand
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
169
patternsocial interactionin importantways. Moreover,only then can they become

social boundaries,i.e., translate,for instance,into identifiablepatternsof social exclusion or class andracialsegregation(e.g., Massey & Denton 1993, Stinchcombe
1995, Loganet al. 1996). But symbolic and social boundariesshouldbe viewed as
equallyreal:The formerexist atthe intersubjectivelevel whereasthe lattermanifest
themselves as groupingsof individuals.At the causal level, symbolic boundaries
can be thought of as a necessary but insufficientcondition for the existence of
social boundaries(Lamont1992, Ch. 7).
While the relationshipof symbolic and social boundariesis at the heartof the
literatureunder review here, it most often remains implicit. Whereas the earlier
literaturetendedto focus on social boundariesand monopolizationprocesses-in
a neo-Weberianfashion-the more recentworkpoints to the articulationbetween
symbolic andsocial boundaries.In the conclusion,we highlighthow a focus on this
relationshipcan help deepen theoreticalprogress.We also formulatealternative
strategiesthroughwhich this literaturecould, andshould,be pushedtowardgreater
integrationin the study of culturalmechanismsfor the productionof boundaries,
of differenceand hybridity,and of culturalmembershipand groupclassifications.
If the notion of boundarieshas become one of our most fertile thinkingtools,
it is in part because it capturesa fundamentalsocial process, that of relationality (Somers 1994, Emirbayer1997). This notion points to fundamentalrelational
processes at work across a wide range of social phenomena,institutions,and locations. Our discussion focuses on the following substantiveareas,moving from
micro to macrolevels of analysis:(a) social and collective identity;(b) class, ethnic/racial and gender/sexualinequality;(c) professions, science and knowledge;
and (d) communities,nationalidentities, and spatialboundaries.Together,these
topics encompass a sizable portionof the boundary-relatedresearchconductedin
anthropology,history,politicalscience, social psychology,andsociology. Because
we arecovering a vast intellectualterrain,our goal is not to providean exhaustive
overview but to inform the readerabout various trends across a range of fields.
Due to space limitations,we focus on how boundariesworkin social relations,and
we do not discuss importantdevelopmentsin the growing literatureon cognition
andon spatial,visual, andtemporalcognitive distinctionsin particular,since these
have been discussed recentlyin Howard(1995), DiMaggio (1997), and Zerubavel
(1997). Also, given our multi-disciplinaryfocus, we cover only partof the importantsociological literatureon changesin boundaries-this topic receives attention
elsewhere (e.g., Tilly 2001).
SOCIAL AND COLLECTIVEIDENTITY

Over the last twenty years, British and American social psychologists working
on group categorizationand identificationhave been studying the segmentation
between "us" and "them."In particular,focusing implicitly on symbolic boundaries, social identity theory suggests that"Pressuresto evaluateones' own group
170
LAMONT* MOLNAR
positively throughin-group/out-groupcomparisonlead social groups to attempt
to differentiatethemselves from each other"(Tajfel& Turner1985, pp. 16-17).
This process of differentiationaims "to maintainand achieve superiorityover an
out-groupon some dimension"(Tajfel & Turner1985, pp. 16-17; also Hogg &
Abrams1988). Hence, in-groupfavoritismis common,especially amonghigh status groups (Brewer& Brown 1998; for reviews, see Sidanius& Pratto 1999 and
Prentice& Miller 1999).
Social identity theory has been particularlyconcerned with the permeability
of what we call symbolic and social boundariesand its effect on individualand
collective mobility strategy.It has been arguedthat perceivinggroup boundaries
as impermeablemakes social changemore likely for low-statusgroups:They then
engage in social competitionas opposed to individualmobility (Ellemers 1993).
Moreover,social psychologists show that people adapt to their environment
throughcognitive categorizationand stereotyping.Also concernedwith symbolic
boundaries,Fiske (1998) in particulararguesthat in-groupsand out-groupsresult
from this automaticprocess, which generatescategorizationby race and gender.
It also affectshow we accountfor people's success andfailures-external/environmental,as opposed to internal/individualand self-blamingexplanationsare more
readily used for males thanfor females (Crockeret al. 1998).
Among sociologists, Jenkins'(1996, Ch. 4) workon collective identitycomplements thatof social psychologists. He describescollective identity as constituted
by a dialectic interplayof processes of internalandexternaldefinition.On the one
hand,individualsmust be able to differentiatethemselvesfrom othersby drawing
on criteriaof communityand a sense of sharedbelonging within their subgroup.
On the otherhand,this internalidentificationprocess must be recognizedby outsiders for an objectifiedcollective identity to emerge (for similar arguments,see
Cornell& Hartman1997, Ch. 4; Brubaker& Cooper2000, pp. 14-21).
Groupboundariesalso figure prominentlyin the work on the role played by
collective identity in social movements (e.g., Taylor & Whittier 1992). Melluci
(1996) emphasizesthecentralityof social networksin generatingshareddefinitions
of "us/them"and in collective mobilization.Similarly,W. Gamson (1992) shows
that the impact of collective identity and group boundarieson the framing of
political issues varies with the compositionof the group.For their part,using an
ecological approachakin to Abbott (1995), McAdam et al. (2001, Ch. 5) study
the constitutionof social actorsthroughboundaries,which they view as a central
process in contentious politics. Drawing on a large number of historical case
studies,they show how the formationof categoriesof social actors(whatthey call
"categoryformation")results from the invention and borrowingof boundaries,
as well as from encountersbetween previouslydistinct and competingnetworks.
TheirworkcomplementsTilly's (1998) on the productionof inequality,which also
concernedmechanismsof social boundaryformation.
More work is needed to integratethe psychological, cultural,and social mechanisms involved in this process of boundaryconstruction. Sociologists working on discrimination,such as Reskin (2000), are linking systematicpatternsof
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
171
discriminationto nonconscious cognitive processes that bias evaluationbased on

statusgroupmembership(also Hollander& Howard2000, DiTomaso2000). These
authors analyze mechanisms of exclusion at the micro level that translateinto
broaderpatternsof inequality.In their cognitive focus, they are less concerned
with how available culturalschemas and structures(Sewell 1992) frame cognition. Comparativeresearchcould play a key role in bringingsuch culturalschemas
to the fore, to the extentthatit aims to highlightpatternsof contrastand similarity
(Ragin 1987).
Along the same lines, psychologistsgenerallyunderstandsocial categorization
and identificationas universal social processes. A number of cultural sociologists and anthropologistshave been more concerned with the accomplishment
of boundary-work,that is with what kinds of typificationsystems, or inferences
concerning similaritiesand differences, groups mobilize to define who they are.
In other words, they are more concernedwith the content and interpretativedimensions of boundary-workthan with intra-individualprocesses. For instance,
Newman (1999) analyzes how fast-food workersin Harlemcontrastthemselves
to the unemployedpoor.Forher part,Kefelas (2002) analyzeshow white working
class people in Chicago define and defend themselves (largely againstblacks) in
whattheyperceiveto be an imperiledworld,throughthe carewith which they keep
theirhomesclean, cultivatetheirgardens,maintaintheirproperty,defendthe neighborhoods,and celebratethe nation.Culturalsociologists centertheir attentionon
how boundariesare shapedby context, andparticularlyby the culturalrepertoires,
traditions,and narrativesthat individualshave access to (Lamont2000, Somers
1994, Swidler 2001). They focus on meaningful patternsof boundarydrawing
within and across societies and view them as embedded in the environment,as
opposed to createdby atomizedindividuals.Their work suggests that we need to
addresshow conceptionsof self-worthand groupboundariesare shapedby institutionalizeddefinitionsof culturalmembership-a topic rarelyvisited by social
psychologistsworkingon the self andidentity(as for instancereviewedin Gecas &
Burke 1995; but see Markus& Kitayama1991 on the self and Reicher& Hopkins
2001 on the historicalcharacterof social categorization).This requiresconsidering
how (self-) worth is formed for low and high status groups, and more generally
how it is tied differentlyto the meanings associatedwith variousgroupidentities
(Rosenfield 1998 is moving in this direction).The lattertopic is the object of the
literatureon class, race, and genderboundaries.
AND GENDER/SEXUAL
CLASS,ETHNIC/RACIAL,
INEQUALITY
Building on Weber (1978), the voluminous scholarshipon class, race, and gender inequalityanalyzes closure between social groups (e.g., Parkin1974). While
the earlierwork centeredon closure and social boundaries,symbolic boundaries
have become more central to this literaturein the last twenty years. From the
172
LAMONT? MOLNAR
researchon class boundaries,we center our attentionon culturalconsumption,
class markers,and class reproductionand on how the self is shapedby class inequality because these two topics have generateda particularlylarge literature
(only partiallycoveredhere).The section on ethnic andracialinequalitydiscusses
the institutionalizationof classificationsystems, threatsto grouppositioning, and
ethnic and racialidentity.The section on genderand sexual inequalityfocuses on
how gender and sexual categories shape expectationsand work life. These three
sections describe the same fundamentalsocial process at work, that of the relational definition of identity and social position, and stress the need for a more
cumulativeresearchagenda(see also Tilly 1998).
Class Inequality
Particularlygerminalin the study of class boundarieshas been the work of Pierre
Bourdieuandhis collaborators,andespecially Bourdieu& Passeron(1972, transl.
1977) who proposedthatthe lower academicperformanceof workingclass childrenis accountedfor not by lower ability butby institutionalbiases againstthem.
They suggested that schools evaluate all children on the basis of their cultural
capital-their familiaritywith the cultureof the dominantclass-and thus penalize lower-class students.Having an extensive vocabulary,wide-rangingcultural
references, and command of high culture are valued by the school system; students from higher social backgroundsacquirethese class resourcesin theirhome
environment.Hence, lower class children are more strenuouslyselected by the
educationalsystem. They are not aware of it, as they remain under the spell of
the cultureof the dominantclass. They blame themselves for their failure,which
leads them to dropout or to sortthemselvesinto lower prestigeeducationaltracks.
Hence, directexclusion, overselection,self-exclusion,andlower level trackingare
key mechanisms in the reproductionof inequality and social boundaries.They
are generatedby symbolic class markers-symbolic boundaries-valued by the
Frencheducationalsystemandarecentralin the creationof social class boundaries.
In Distinction, Bourdieu (1984, transl. 1984) broadenedthis analysis to the
world of tastes and culturalpractices at large. He showed how the logic of class
struggle extends to the realm of taste and lifestyle and that symbolic classification is key to the reproductionof class privileges: Dominant groups generally
succeed in legitimizing their own cultureand ways as superiorto those of lower
classes, throughoppositionssuch as distinguished/vulgar,aesthetic/practical,and
pure/impure(p. 245). They therebyexercise "symbolic violence," i.e., impose a
specific meaningas legitimatewhile concealingthe powerrelationsthatarethe basis of its force (Bourdieu& Passeron1972, transl.1977, p. 4). They use theirlegitimatecultureto markculturaldistanceandproximity,to monopolizeprivileges,and
to exclude and recruitnew occupantsto high statuspositions (p. 31)-translating
symbolic distinctioninto closure. Hence, throughthe incorporationof habitus or
culturaldispositions,culturalpracticeshave inescapableand unconsciousclassificatoryeffects that shape social positions by defining (social) class boundaries.
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
173
"Classificationstruggles"to impose the superiorityof one's worldviewareequally

centralto Bourdieu'sconceptionof "fields,"definedas networksof social relations
structuredaroundcompetitionover variousstakes, such as academic,artistic,and
literaryprestige (e.g. Bourdieu 1984).
A large American literatureapplying, extending, and assessing the contributions of Bourdieuand his collaboratorsappearedin the wake of their translation
into English. One importantbranchfocused on culturalconsumptionand social
reproduction,analyzinghow levels of culturalcapital and otherfactors influence
educationalandoccupationalattainment(i.e., social class boundaries)in the United
States and elsewhere. Another branchconcernedthe process of institutionalization of artistic genres and high culture categories and its relationshipwith the
organizationaland social structuralenvironment(e.g., DiMaggio 1987). A third
one, in a morecriticalvein, providedsystematicempiricalevaluationof Bourdieu's
work.Forinstance,Lamont(1992) extendedtheconceptof boundary-work(Gieryn
1983) to identity (p. 233, note 5) to demonstratethe importanceof moralboundaries in the cultureof the Frenchand the Americanupper-middleclasses.
In contrastto Bourdieu'smore exclusive focus on culturalcapital and social
position, Lamontarguedin favorof an inductive,interview-basedapproachto the
study of symbolic class boundariesto assess the permeabilityand relative importanceof differentsorts of boundaries(socioeconomic, moral, cultural)across
nationalandgroupcontexts.Halle's (1993) studyof groupvariationsin home decorationin the New Yorkareasuggestedthatartconsumptiondoes not necessarily
generatesocial boundariesandthatculturalconsumptionis less differentiatedthan
culturalcapital theory suggests-with landscapeart being appreciatedby all social groupsfor instance.He concludes that"thelink between involvementin high
cultureand access to dominantclass circles ... is undemonstrated"(p. 198). In a
theoreticalpiece, Hall (1992) emphasizedthe existence of heterogeneousmarkets
and of multiplekinds of culturalcapital.In a critiqueof an overarchingmarketof
culturalcapital,he proposeda culturalstructuralismthataddressesthe multiplicity
of statussituations(also Lamont& Lareau1988).
On the topic of thepermeabilityof culturalboundaries,Bryson(1996), Erickson
(1996), andPeterson& Kern(1996) also suggestedthatculturalbreadthis a highly
valued resource in the upper and upper-middleclasses. Hence they contradict
Bourdieu'sview of the dominantclass as essentially exclusive and intolerantof
other class cultures. Bryson (1996) finds that in the United States, musical exclusiveness decreases with education. She proposes that culturaltolerancefor a
range of musical genres ("anythingbut heavy metal")constitutesa multicultural
capital more strongly concentratedin the middle and upper classes than in the
lower classes. Erickson(1996) suggests thatalthoughfamiliaritywith high-status
culturecorrelateswith class, it is not used in the managementof class relationsin
the workplace.She writes that in the Torontosecurityindustry,as is the case for
familiaritywith sport,the "cultureuseful for coordinationis uncorrelated... with
class, popularin every class" (p. 248) and that "the most useful overall cultural
resourceis varietyplus a well-honedunderstandingof which [culture]genreto use
174
LAMONTE MOLNAR
in which setting"(p. 249). Peterson& Kern(1996) documenta shift in high-status
persons from snobbishexclusion to "omnivorousappropriation"in their musical
taste. In the United States, these studies all call for a more multidimensionalunderstandingof culturalcapital(a type of symbolicboundary)as a basis for drawing
social boundaries,andthey counterBourdieu'spostulatethatthe value of tastes is
definedrelationallythrougha binaryor oppositionallogic.
A numberof sociologists are now engaged in analyzinghow the self is shaped
by class andis producedthroughboundariesanddifferences.Forinstance,drawing
on extensivefieldworkwith poor,workingclass, andmiddleclass families, Lareau
(2000) showsimportantdifferencesin childhoodsocializationacrosssocial classes,
withblackandwhiteupper-middleclass parentsexplicitlyfavoring"concertedcultivation"and the pursuitof self-actualization,as opposed to the "naturalgrowth"
advocatedby workingclass people. The anthropologistJohn Jackson(2001) dissects how African-Americansliving in Harlem understandand perform symbolic class boundariesin the contextof intra-racialrelationship.Alford Young,Jr.
(2001) provides a rich analysis of the identity of poor young black men and of
how they accountfor theirdistinctive social position in relationto that of others.
These studiespoint to the role of relationalityin the definitionof identity.As with
the morerecentliteratureon the fluidityof culturalboundaries,it would be useful
to explore the extent to which this process follows a binarylogic as opposed to a
multiplexone. In otherwords, we need to explore whetheridentities are defined
in oppositionto a privileged"Other,"or in juxtapositionto a numberof possible
"others":Symbolic boundariesmay be more likely to generatesocial boundaries
when they are drawn in opposition to one group as opposed to multiple, often
competingout-groups.
Ethnic/Racial Inequality
The conceptof boundaryhas been centralto the studyof ethnicandracialinequality as an alternativeto more static culturalor even biological theories of ethnic
and racial differences. Particularlygerminalhere was Norwegian anthropologist
FredrickBarth(1969) who rejecteda view of ethnicitythatstressedsharedculture
in favor of a more relationalapproachemphasizingthat feelings of communality
aredefinedin oppositionto the perceivedidentityof otherracialandethnicgroups
(also Hechter 1975, Horowitz 1985). Among the severalrecent contributionsinspiredby this work,Verdery(1994) analyzedhow a nationstateacts as a producer
of differencesandas an internalhomogenizerof populations(also Starr1992). Following Davis (1991) and others, the study of the productionof racial and ethnic
classificationby the state (at the level of census categories)has become a growth
industryin the United States, and it is a particularlyfruitful terrainfor studying shifts in the definitionof social boundaries.Until recently,these categories
forced people to chose only one racial category,as it assumedthat racial groups
were mutually exclusive (Lee 1993). In the last few years, Shanahan& Olzak
(1999) and Gans (1999) have analyzed the factors that are leading to a growing
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
175
polarizationbetweenwhites andnonwhites:Immigrantsareled to identifywith the

white populationin the defense of theirprivilegedmarketposition or status,which
leads to violence against nonwhites. While intergroupboundarieshave attracted
most scholarlyattention[see also Lieberson'shighly originalstudy (2000) of patternsin choice of firstnames throughoutthe century],recentlyEspiritu(2000) has
focused on how moral discourse is used to draw symbolic boundarieswithin and
between groups. This suggests an intensifieddialogue between culturalsociologists andimmigrationspecialists(also Waters1999, Levitt2001, Morawska2001;
in anthropology,Ong 1996).
Among studentsof Americanracism, Bobo & Hutchings(1996) adopta relational logic akin to Barth's to explain racism as resulting from threatsto group
positioning.However,they follow Blumer(1958) who advocates"shift[ing]study
and analysis from a preoccupationwith feelings as lodged in individualsto a concern with the relationshipsof racial groups ... [and with] the collective process
by which a racial group comes to define and redefineanotherracial group"(p. 3)
This and other contributions(Rieder 1987) point to self-interestas the source of
ethnic conflictandto how such conflicts aretied with closure-with the protection
of acquiredprivileges. Such dynamicshave shapedworkingclass formationin the
United States (Roediger 1991). They are also the object of a growing numberof
studiesconcernedwith the studyof "whiteness"as a nonsalient,taken-for-granted,
hegemonic racial category.
This relationalperspectiveresonateswith morerecentworkon racialandethnic
identityconstructionthatconsidershow these identitiesare the resultof a process
of self-definitionand the constructionof symbolic boundariesand assignmentof
collective identities by others (Cornell & Hartmann1997, Ch. 4; also Portes &
Rumbaut2001). For instance,Waters(1999) examinedthe repertoiresof cultures
and identitythatWestIndianimmigrantsbringto the United Statesas well as their
strategiesof self-presentationandthe boundariesthey drawin relationto AfricanAmericans (p. 12). DiTomaso (2000) also sheds new light on white opposition
to affirmativeaction by looking at how middle class and working class whites
constructtheir experiences in the labor marketcomparedto those of blacks, and
particularlywhetherthey andtheirchildrenreceivemorehelp thanblacks.Lamont
(2000) analyzes how the broadmoral worldviews of workerslead them to draw
racialboundaries-white workersassociateblackswith the poor and lack of work
ethic, while blackworkersassociatewhites with middleclass egotism. Here again,
the literatureis in need of greatersystematization,particularlywhen it comes to
specifying boundaryprocesses,rangingfrom symbolic boundary-workto how social boundariesaretransportedby immigrantsfromone nationalcontextto another.
Genderand SexualInequality
The literatureon gender includes a rich treatmentof boundariesdefined as "the
complex structures-physical, social, ideological, andpsychological-which establish the differencesandcommonalitiesbetweenwomen andmen, amongwomen,
176
LAMONT* MOLNAR
andamongmen, shapingandconstrainingthe behaviorandattitudesof eachgender
group"(Gerson& Peiss 1985, p. 318).
At the social psychological level, Ridgeway (1997) explains gender inequality in terms of interactionalprocesses and the constructionof boundaries.She
arguesthat we "automaticallyand unconsciously gender-categorizeany specific
otherto whom we must relate"and thatwhen "occupationalroles are activatedin
the process of perceivinga specific person, they become nested within the prior,
automaticcategorizationof that person as male or female, and take on a slightly
differentmeaningas a result"(1997, p. 220). Hence, male workersare believed to
be more competentthan female workers.Those who violate gender boundaries,
concerningappropriatenormsfor time managementfor instance,often experience
punishmentand stigmatizationin the workplace,or even at home (Epstein2000,
1988)-symbolic boundariestranslatedinto social boundaries.Similarly,in her
studyof body managementon college campuses,Martin(2001) shows how sorority girls andfeminist and athletestudentsareconfrontedwith boundarypatrolling
practicesconcerninghegemonic femininity (a concept she derives from Connell
1987). Earlierstudies on the accomplishmentof gender are also primarilyconcerned with the creationof gender boundaries,althoughthey may not explicitly
use this term (West & Zimmerman1987).
Sociologists have also analyzedthe creationof gender-basedsocial boundaries
in organizationsandprofessions(Reskin& Hartmann1986), focusing on the glass
ceiling (Epstein 1981, Kay & Hagan 1999) and strategiesdeveloped to break it
(e.g., Lorber 1984). Boundary maintenanceis analyzed through the rules that
applyto men and women workingin stronglygenderedoccupations.Forinstance,
Williams (1995) shows that in occupationssuch as nursing,men are given more
leeway thanwomen andmove fasterup the professionalladder.At a more general
level, Tilly (1998) argues that dichotomouscategories such as male and female
(butalso white andblack)areused by dominantgroupsto marginalizeothergroups
and block theiraccess to resources.He extends the Weberianscheme by pointing
to various mechanismsby which this is accomplished,such as exploitationand
opportunityhoarding.He asserts that durableinequalitymost often results from
cumulative,individual,and often unnoticedorganizationalprocesses.
Sociologists have also writtenon sexual boundaries.For instance,Stein (1997)
analyzeshow feministscollectively contestedthe dominantmeaningof lesbianism
and how the symbolic boundariesaroundthe lesbian category changed over the
courseof the movement'sinfluence:They "reframedthe meaning[of homosexuality], suggestingthatthe boundariesseparatingheterosexualityand homosexuality
were in fact permeable"(p. 25) insteadof essentialized.Also focusing on symbolic
boundaries,J. Gamson(1998) analyzes how the portrayalof gay people on entertainmenttelevision validatesmiddle class professionalsand gays who maintaina
distinctionbetweenthepublicandtheprivate,butthatit also delegitimizesworking
class gay people. Brekhus(1996) describessocial markingandmentalcoloringas
two basic processes by which "deviant"sexual identityis definedagainsta neutral
standard.
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
177
Gender and sexual boundariesare a fertile terrainfor the study of boundary

crossing and boundaryshifting as well as the institutionalizationand diffusion of
boundaries-precisely because they have become highly contestedand because a
richliteratureon gendersocializationandreproductionis available.As for the study
of class and racial/ethnicboundaries,there is a need for greatersystematization
and theorizationconcerningthese topics. Researchersshould also pay particular
attentionto the roles played respectively by symbolic and social boundariesin
the makingof gender/sexualinequality.While Ridgeway (1997) and Tilly (1998)
makeimportantstridesin specifyingthe cognitiveandsocial mechanismsinvolved
in genderboundary-work,similaranalyses are needed concerningculturalnarratives that play a crucialrole in the reproductionof gender boundaries[along the
lines developedby Blair-Loy(2001) concerningthe "familydevotion"and "work
devotion"schemasused by women financeexecutives,or by Hays (1996) a propos
of the concept of "intensivemothering"].
PROFESSIONS, SCIENCE, AND KNOWLEDGE

The literatureon professions,science, and social knowledgeillustratesexceptionally well the usefulnessof the conceptof boundariesas it is used to understandhow
professionscame to be distinguishedfrom one another-experts fromlaymen,science from nonscience, disciplines between themselves, and more generally how
systems of classificationemerge to bringorderin our lives. Focus on these social
boundariespromptsresearchersto developa relationalandsystemic(oftenecological) perspectiveon knowledgeproductionsensitiveto historicalprocessesandsymbolic strategiesin defining the content and institutionalcontoursof professional
and scientific activity. The notion of boundariesis also an essential tool to map
how models of knowledge are diffused across countriesand impact local institutions andidentities.Some (Bowker& Star 1999, Star& Griesemer1989) approach
boundariesas meansof communication,as opposedto division, and show thatthey
areessentialto the circulationof knowledgeandinformationacross social worlds.
Professions and Work

Research on professions and work includes some of the most influential-and
by now, canonized-research on boundariesproducedover the last thirty years.
Indeed,the notionof "professions"originallyemergedas a demarcationproblemi.e., a problemof boundaries-between "special"and ordinaryoccupations.The
issue was whether professions should be defined by their particularknowledge
base, as a particularphase in the developmentof occupations,or as a particular
type of institutionalorganizationgiving practitionerscontrolover access, training,
credentialing,andevaluationof performance.The latterview emphasizedmonopolistic closure (or social boundarydrawing) as the defining element of moder
professions (Parkin1974). This approacharguedthat the strategiesprofessionals
178
LAMONT? MOLNAR
usedto defineandinstitutionalizetheboundariesof the professionagainstoutsiders
constitutethe essence of the "professionalizationproject"(Sarfatti-Larson1979).
This conflict-orientedtheoryincorporatedan understandingof professionalization
as a normativeframeworkof "social and ideological control"(p. 238).
In a similar vein, critical analyses of education examined the credentialing
system as a mechanism throughwhich monopolistic closure in the professions
is achieved. Collins (1979) found a surprisinglyweak correlationbetween the
requirementsof educationalcredentialsand the skill/knowledgerequirementsof
jobs. On the basis of this empiricalobservationhe arguedthateducationserves to
socialize prospectiveprofessionalsinto statusculturesby drawinga line between
insidersandoutsiders(also Manza1992, p. 279). Closuremodelsof theprofessions
show greataffinitywith, andarein fact integratedinto, a moregeneraltheoryof the
productionof inequalitythroughsocial closure and networks(e.g., Collins 2001).
Abbott (1988) shifted the analytical focus from the organizationalforms to
the contents of professionallife, and from the struggles of professionalsagainst
outsidersto the struggles of professionals among themselves. In contrastto the
closuremodel thatdescribedprofessionsas a closed system(wherea professionis a
clearly boundednaturalanalyticalunit emergingfrom functionalspecialization),
Abbott argued that professions constitute an open, ecological system in which
individualprofessions exist in interdependence.They compete with one another
forjurisdictionalmonopolies,for the legitimacyof theirclaimedexpertise,thereby
constitutinga constantlychangingsystemof professions.This competitionusually
assumes the form of disputes over jurisdictionalboundaries,i.e., it is waged to
redrawthe social boundariesbetween professions.
The literatureon professionshas paid less attentionto how boundariesbetween
expertsand laymen (e.g., professionalsand manuallaborers)are enacted in work
situations. Vallas (2001) aims to expand existing research in this direction by
looking at distinctionsbetweenengineersand skilled manualworkersin six paper
mills at a timeof technologicalchange.He sees professionalboundariesas resulting
not only from interprofessionalcompetition a la Abbott, but also from disputes
with subordinatesat the workplace,as thereis often considerableoverlapbetween
the tasks they are expected to perform.He traces how culturalboundariesin the
form of scientific and technical knowledge (the mark of the trained engineer)
providea salient mechanismfor the productionof social boundaries.At the same
time he notes that the deploymentof symbolic boundariesis a contestedprocess,
the outcome of which is largely context dependent. His work underscoresthe
importanceof consideringthe interfacebetween dominantand dominatedgroups
in the productionof symbolic and social boundaries.
Science, Disciplines, and Knowledge

Like professionals,scientistshave also wantedto distinguishthemselvesfrom amateursand charlatansby erectingthe boundariesof "real"science. Gieryn(1983)
to describe the discursive practicesby which
coined the term "boundary-work"
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
179
scientists attemptto attributeselected qualities to scientists, scientific methods,

and scientific claims in order to draw a "rhetoricalboundarybetween science
and some less authoritative,residualnon-science" (Gieryn 1999, pp. 4-5; 1983,
p. 781; 1995). He arguesthatboundary-workis animportantresourcethattranslates
into "strategicpracticalaction"(1999, p. 23) for the purposeof establishingepistemic authority.The drawingand redrawingof the boundariesof science amount
to credibilitycontests that employ three genres of boundary-work:expulsion, expansion, and protectionof autonomy.Expulsion characterizescontests between
rival authoritieswhen each claims to be scientific. In this context "boundarywork becomes a means of social control"(p. 16), sanctioningthe transgressionof
the (symbolic) boundariesof legitimacy.Expansionis used when rival epistemic
authoritiestryto monopolizejurisdictionalcontrolover a disputedontologicaldomain.Finally,boundary-workis mobilizedin the serviceof protectingprofessional
autonomyagainstoutside powers (legislators,corporatemanagers)that endeavor
to encroachupon or exploit scientists' epistemic authorityfor theirown purposes
(pp. 5-17).
While Abbottemphasizedthe objectivecharacterof the tasksthatcreatecompetitionto transformprofessionaljurisdictions,Gieryn(1999, p. 16, ftnt 21) stresses
the power (flexibility and often arbitrariness)of interpretativestrategiesin constructinga space for "science"in pursuitof epistemicauthority.In this instance,he
takes inspirationfrom the work of historianRobertDamton (1984) who follows
Enlightenmentphilosophersin theirambitiousendeavorto redrawthe boundaries
of the world of knowledgein Diderot'sEncyclopedie.He shows how Diderotand
d'Alembert chose selectively among elements of earliertopographiesof knowledge in charting a new line between the known and the unknowableand how
the "diagrammaticimpulse-a tendency to map, outline, spatialize segments of
knowledge"has been simultaneouslyan"exercisein power"(pp. 193-94). Danton
(1984) with Davis (1975) aretwo of the most illustriousrepresentativesof a large
literaturein culturalhistoryon symbolic distinctions(fromthe perspectiveof historical sociology, see also Zelizer 1985) on the constructionof childrenas objects
of affectionand sources of labor).
That boundary-workis an immensely useful concept to illuminatethe social
organizationof scientificknowledge is also demonstratedby its successful applications in a wide range of case studies. Indeed, it also imprintsthe formationand
institutionalizationof disciplines, specialties, and theoreticalorientationswithin
science. Gieryntracesthe shiftingboundariesof the "cartographicallyambiguous
place of 'social' science" (1999, p. 31) throughthe debates of the late 1940s that
chartedthe futurelegislative terrainof the National Science Foundation.Moore
(1996) examines the contentiousboundarybetween science and politics, showing how activist scientists sometimes successfully play both sides of the fence.
Gaziano (1996) reviews academic debates about the association of biology and
sociology in the wake of the new field of human ecology. Small (1999) compares the practice of boundary-workin emerging disciplines in a case study of
the legitimationof African-Americanstudies at Temple University and Harvard
180
LAMONTE MOLNAR
Universitythat helps us understandwhy Henry Louis Gates goes to such length
to oppose afrocentricity.Gal & Irvine(1995) describethe field of sociolinguistics
as institutionalizingdifferences among languages and dialects and as producing
linguistic ideologies that are an intrinsicpart of disciplinaryboundaries.Fuller
(1991) surveysthe canonicalhistoriographyof five social science disciplines. He
contendsthat"disciplinaryboundariesprovidethe structurefor a varietyof functions, rangingfrom the allocationof cognitive authorityand materialresourcesto
the establishmentof reliable access to some extra-socialreality"(p. 302). These
studiespoint to the presenceof relational(andoften political) processes operating
across institutionsand contexts.
The analyticalfocus on boundariesalso highlights the countless parallelsand
interconnectionsbetween the developmentof the professionsanddisciplines. The
historianThomasBender(1984) arguesthatthe creationof specializedandcertified
communities of discourse, a segmented structureof "professionaldisciplines,"
was partlytriggeredby profoundhistoricalchanges in the spatialorganizationof
the nineteenthcenturyAmericancity (the locus of intellectuals)thatincreasingly
emphasized exclusion over inclusion, segregationover diversity.Recent works
on the historical trajectoriesof social science disciplines in the United States
and Europe document a remarkablevariationin national profiles rooted in the
differentrelationshipsof the sciences to variouspartsof society such as the state,
professionals,andmarkets(Wagneret al. 1991a,b,Rueschemeyer& Skocpol 1996,
Fourcade-Gourinchas
2000).
In contrastto studies that so far treatedboundariesas markersof difference,
Susan Leigh Starand her collaboratorsconceptualizeboundariesas interfacesfacilitatingknowledgeproduction.Theyuse thisunderstandingof conceptualboundaries to explore how interrelatedsets of categories,i.e., systems of classification,
come to be delineated.They agree with Foucaultthatthe creationof classification
schemes by setting the boundariesof categories "valorizes some point of view
and silences another"(Bowker & Star 1999, p. 5), reflectingethical and political
choices andinstitutionalizingdifferences.But they point out thatthese boundaries
also act as importantinterfacesenablingcommunicationacross communities(by
virtue of standardization,for instance).They coin the term "boundaryobject"to
describe these interfaces that are key to developing and maintainingcoherence
across social worlds (Star & Griesemer 1989, p. 393). Boundaryobjects can be
materialobjects, organizationalforms, conceptual spaces or procedures.In the
spiritof the influential"materialturn"in science studies,they arguethatobjectsof
scientificinquiryinhabitmultipleintersectingsocial worldsjust as classifications
are also powerful technologies that may link thousandsof communities.In their
most recent study,Bowker & Star (1999) apply this analyticaltool to understand
how such classification systems as the InternationalClassificationof Diseases,
race classificationunderapartheidin SouthAfrica, the NursingInterventionClassification,and the classificationof viruses make the coordinationof social action
possible (on this point, see also Thenevot1984, Boltanski& Th6venot1991). They
view classifications as simultaneouslymaterialand symbolic, and as ecological
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
181
systems where categories are constructedand often naturalized.The concept of

the boundaryobject allows them to expandearlierwork on the emergenceand the
working of classification systems in modem societies (Foucault 1970, Hacking
1992, Desrosieres 1993). This concept is particularlyimportantbecause it underlines that boundariesare conditions not only for separationand exclusion, but
also for communication,exchange, bridging,and inclusion, echoing the theme of
"omnivorousness"encounteredin the literatureon class andculturalconsumption
(e.g., Bryson 1996, Peterson& Kern 1996).
COMMUNITIES,NATIONALIDENTITIES,
AND SPATIALBOUNDARIES
Boundarieshave always been a centralconcern of studies of urbanand national
communities.Indeed,following Durkheim(1965), communitieshavebeen defined
by theirinternalsegmentationas muchas by theirexternalperimeter.Accordingly,
the literatureson symbolicandnetwork-drivencommunitieshave focused on these
very dimensions, again pointing to relational processes at work. Similarly, the
recentliteratureson nationalidentityand statebuildinghave looked at boundaries
andbordersto show thatplace, nation,andculturearenot necessarilyisomorphic.
They also pinpoint the extent to which national identity, like nation building,
is defined relationally and emerges from dynamic processes of interactionand
negotiationbetween local and nationalforces.
Communities
Research on boundary-workand communitycan be grouped in four categories.
First,thereis a long traditionof research,directlyinspiredby the Chicago School
of community studies, that concerns the internal symbolic boundariesof communities and largely emphasizes labeling and categorization(e.g. Erikson 1966,
Suttles 1968). Anderson(1999), on the poor blackneighborhoodsof Philadelphia,
points to the internalsegmentationof the world he studies, based on the distinctions thataremadeby respondentsthemselves-for instance,between"street"and
"decent"people (also Pattillo-McCoy1999). Among recentstudies,severalscholars have focused on the symbolic boundariesfound within specific institutional
spheres, such as religious communities.For instance, Becker (1999) studies how
religious communitiesbuild boundariesbetween themselves and "the public"by
analyzingthe discourseof largerreligious traditionsand how local congregations
reconfigurethe public-privatedivide. Lichterman(2001) explores how members
of conservativeandliberalChristiancongregationsdefinetheirbonds of solidarity
with variousgroups,exploringthe limits of whathe calls theirdefinitionsof "social
membership."
Second, a numberof sociologists tie communities,networks,and meaningsystems together(Gould 1995, White 1992, Tilly 1998). For instance,Gould (1995)
182
LAMONTE MOLNAR
explains changes in the salience of class in collective mobilization in the 1848
French revolutionand the 1871 Paris Commune by the emergence of strongly
residentialneighborhoods,which made the local communitymore centralin mobilizing individualsby 1871 (p. 28). Hence, while the firstrevolutionactivatedthe
boundarybetween workersand the bourgeoisie,the second opposed city dwellers
and the state. Gould shows thatthe appealsof differentnetworksinvolved in the
productionof collective mobilizationwere responsiblefor the relativesalience of
these identitiesas bases for recruitment.His model posits that"meaningfulgroup
boundariesare predicatedon the presence (and perception)of common patterns
of durableties" (p. 19).
Third, there is a growing literatureon communitiesthat do not involve faceto-face contacts. According to Calhoun (1991), these indirect relationshipsinclude those mediatedby informationtechnology,technocraticorganizations,and
impersonalmarkets.They consist of a world of imagined personal connections
throughsome mediumsuch as television,visual or printedrepresentation,or tradition (Cerulo 1997, Swidler2001). They can also be large-scalecollectivitieswhere
membersare"linkedprimarilyby commonidentitiesbutminimallyby networksof
directlyinterpersonalrelationships-nation, races, classes, genders,Republicans,
Muslims and 'civilized' people" (Anderson1983, p. 96). Individualswithin such
categoricalcommunitieshave at theirdisposal commoncategorizationsystems to
differentiatebetween insiders and outsidersand common vocabulariesand symbols throughwhich they createa sharedidentity.People who sharesuch categories
can be consideredto be membersof the same symbolic communityeven if their
living conditionsvary in importantways (Hunter1974, Wuthnow1989, Lamont
1992, also Calhoun1991, p. 108).
In American sociology, one finds a large number of influential studies that
deal with symbolic and social boundarieswithin such communities.For instance,
Gusfield(1963) interpretsthe nineteenthcenturyAmericantemperancemovement
as a creationof small-townProtestantsaimingto bolstertheirsocial positionagainst
that of urbanCatholicimmigrants.Along similarlines, Luker(1984) shows that
Americananti-abortionand pro-choice activists have incompatiblebeliefs about
women's careers,family, sexuality,and reproduction,and that they talk past one
anotherand largely define themselves in opposition to one another.Alexander
(1992) provides a semiotic analysis of the symbolic codes of civic society that
suggests thatthe democraticcode involves cleardistinctionsbetweenthe pureand
the impurein definingthe appropriatecitizen.
These three lines of work on communitiesare complementedby more philosophical debates emerging from political theory circles concerning community
boundaries.Overthe past fifteenyears,communitariansandliberalshave time and
againengagedone anotherover the importanceof individualandgrouprights,pluralism,self-determination,andnationalism(Taylor1992, Spinner1994, Kymlicka
1995). A normativediscourseaboutthe possibility of liberalnationalismand progressivecosmopolitanismattractedmuchattentionin the contextof the heightened
visibility of identity politics (Ignatieff 1993, Tamir 1993, Held 1996). Although
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
183
these debatesrarelyengage empiricalsocial science research,they arevery importantto the issue at handbecausethey addresssocial boundaryproblemsin termsof
political inclusionandexclusion, andthey focus on the responsibilitiesthathuman
beings have in relationto groupsof various"others."
A more cumulativeresearchagenda should involve comparingsymbolic and
social boundarieswithin symbolic communities and network-drivencommunities. It would be particularlyimportantto determinewhetherthese two types of
communities operate similarly; to what extent widely available schemas shape
the drawingof boundarieswithin face-to-face communities(e.g., Ikegami2000,
p. 1007); andhow boundary-workgeneratedby the media(e.g., Gilens 1999) feeds
into the social boundariesthatstructurethe environmentin which individualslive
and work.
National Identity,SpatialBoundaries,Nation Building,

and Deterritorialization
The main object of a growinghistoricaland anthropologicalliteratureon national
identityand bordersis to breakdown the long-held assumptionaboutthe isomorphism of places, nation, and culture (Rosaldo 1989, Gupta & Ferguson 1992).
Scholars in this vein focus "on the place and space of visible and literal borders
between states, and the symbolic boundariesof identity and culturewhich make
nationsand statestwo very differententities"(Wilson& Donnan 1998, p. 2). They
move forwardthe researchagendalaunchedby BenedictAnderson(1983), which
did not at first explore the specific ways in which individualsand communities
symbolically constructlinks to the nation.
Bordersprovidemost individualswith a concrete, local, and powerfulexperience of the state,for this is the site where citizenshipis stronglyenforced(through
passportchecks, for instance).The social experienceof bordersencompassesformal and informalties between local communitiesand largerpolities, and hence
constitutesa privilegedsite for analyzingmicro andmacrodimensionsof national
identity (Lightfoot & Martinez 1995, Wilson & Donnan 1998). This is exemplified by Sahlins (1989) who, in his account of how ethnic Catalanswere made
into Frenchmenand Spaniardsin the Pyr6nees,demonstratesthatthe formationof
the territorialboundaryline and nationalidentities did not merely emanatefrom
the center but unfolded as a two-way process: States did not simply impose the
boundaryand the nation on the local community.Village communitiesand their
inhabitantsalso made use of the nation and its boundariesin pursuitof local interests. Along the same lines, anthropologistMichael Herzfeld (1996) compares
formal,state-sponsoreddiscourseandlocal, "intimate"discourseaboutGreeknational identity in order to show that the relatively fixed territorialboundariesof
statesandshiftingsymbolicboundariesof nationsas moralcommunitiesarelikely
to be incongruous.
Therelationalconstructionof nationalsimilaritiesanddifferencesis particularly
apparentin borderregions between nation states. For Bomeman, bordersconvey
184
LAMONT* MOLNAR
a sense of inherentduality and promote a "process of mirrorimaging" (1992a,
p. 17) where the constructionof othernessconstantly takes place on both sides
of the border(also Berdahl 1999). Througha sketch of the historical evolution
of the Swedish-Danishborder,L6fgren (1999) shows how bordersgrew increasingly nationalizedby the introductionof passports,for instance. The relational
approachused in these studies helps to highlight that nationalidentity overlaps
with otherforms of politicizeddifferencesuch as race, genderor sexuality.It links
the study of nationalidentity to the creationof modem subjects and systems of
social classification(Rosaldo 1989, Verdery1994, Ong 1996).
Researcherswho concentrateon borders(i.e., territorialboundaries)as instrumentalin the constructionof differenceusuallyexamineprocessesof nationbuilding. Forinstance,Bomemanreconstructsthe masternarrativesof nationbuildingin
East andWest Germanyafter 1945, underscoringthatthe "productionof different
nationswas a preconditionfor theirclaim to legitimatestatehood"(1992b, p. 45).
While the WestGermanstatehas successfullyconstructeda narrativeof prosperity
as a basis for a positive nationalidentity,the East Germanstate largely failed to
provideits citizens with a similarlycoherentcompetingnarrative.The process of
unificationexacerbatedproblemsof nationalidentificationas it called intoquestion
a notionthatpersonalidentity,home, culture,andnationwere discrete,territorially
distinctwholes (p. 58). Glaeser (2000) similarlydocumentsthe unificationof the
Berlin police to show how the disappearanceof the territorialboundaryleft almost intactthe deep divide betweenformerEast andWestGermansas differences
continue to be reproducedthrougha myriad of symbolic boundaries(temporal,
sensual, moral,public/private).Drawingon the field of rhetoric,he also points to
basic mechanismsof symbolic boundary-workby which East and West Germans
differentiatethemselvesfrom one another,focusing on "projectsof identifications
of selves" based on metaphors,metonymies,and synecdoches (p. 49).
Otherstudies treatbordersas interstitialzones and are largely concernedwith
have inhow processes of decolonization,globalization,and transnationalization
and
creolized
national
identities
(for
creasingly deterritorialized,hybridized,
reviews, see Gupta & Ferguson 1992, Alvarez 1995, Kearney 1995). Anthropologists, joined lately by historians,have mostly concentratedtheir attentionon
the borderareabetween the United States and Mexico as a paradigmaticresearch
site. They treatthe borderas a culturalinterfacebetween these societies that has
produced a range of multiplex and transnationalidentities such as "Chicano,"
"Latino,"and "Hispanic,"moving beyond the more monolithic categories of
"Mexicans" and "Americans"(Anzaldua 1987, Kearney 1991, Alvarez 1995,
Gutierrez 1999). According to historianDavid Thelen (1999, p. 441), "In this
new perspectivebordersbecame not sites for the division of people into separate
spheresand opposingidentitiesand groups,but sites for interactionbetween individualsfrommanybackgrounds,hybridization,creolization,andnegotiation"(also
Rosaldo 1989).
Challenges to clearly defined and neatly boundednationalidentities come in
the form of flows of capital, technologies, goods, and people across national
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
185
borders. The majority of the literaturethat probes these processes focuses on

flows of people, i.e., immigrationand more sporadicallyon refugees (e.g., Malkki
1995). Baub6ck(1998) is concernedwith the ways in which immigrantsintroduce
new forms of culturaldiversity and a new source of anxiety in several societies.
He examineschanges in the languageof integrationand multiculturalismacross a
rangeof settings and arguesthatinternationalmigrantsblurthreekinds of boundaries:,territorialbordersof states,political boundariesof citizenship, and cultural
(symbolic) boundariesof nationalcommunities(p. 8). Brubaker(1992) focuses on
how citizenshipis defined differentlyin Frenchand Germanimmigrationpolicy.
He looks at citizenship as a conceptual place where relationshipto the "other"
(i.e., Poles, Jews, Slavs in Germany,North Africans in France)is articulatedby
the state. Similarly Zolberg & Long (1999) turn to the incorporationof immigrantsin the United States andFrance.They analyzehow in Europe,religion and,
in the United States, language are used extensively to constructsymbolic boundaries between "us" and "them."They suggest that boundarycrossing, blurring,
and shifting are centralto negotiationsbetween newcomers and hosts. Also concernedwith classification,Soysal (1994) andKastoryano(1996) studyworld- and
state-level classifications to examine how minority/migrantgroups are incorporated,often againstinstitutionalizedschemes aboutpersonhoodthat arepromoted
by internationalorganizations.Finally, research on transnationalcommunities
and diasporasalso problematizesthe relationshipbetween nation, state, and territory. As immigrants,migrants (including members of transnationaland professional elites), refugees, displaced and stateless persons continue to make up
an increasing portion of the world population (Kearney 1995, p. 559, Hannerz
1992). The stranger,"the man who comes today and stays tomorrow"(Simmel
1971, p. 143) becomes instrumentalin redrawing the boundaries of national
identities.
In a somewhat different direction, another line of research analyzes crossnationalboundary-makingstrategies,i.e., how countriesdefine themselves in opposition to one another.For instance, contrastingFrance and the United States,
Lamont & Th6venot (2000) analyze the criteriaof evaluationmobilized across
a range of comparativecases (environmentalism,critiques of contemporaryart,
racism,etc.) in Franceandthe United States.They show thatvariouscriteria,such
as marketprinciples,humansolidarity,and aesthetics,are presentwithin cultural
repertoiresof each nationandregion,butin varyingproportions.These differences
often come to constitutethe basis of divergingnationalidentities [e.g., in the case
of the simultaneousanti-materialismand anti-Americanismexpressedby French
professionalsandmanagers(Lamont1992)]. This relationallogic also affects policy. For instance, France'ssexual harassmentpolicy is explicitly defined against
what is viewed as Americanexcesses in the realmof political correctness(Saguy
2001). In contrastto anthropologistswho stressthe decline of the nationalvia hybridizationfor instance,these sociological studies suggest the persistingsalience
of nationalboundariesat least in the structurationof availableculturalrepertoires
(also Lamont2000).
186
LAMONT. MOLNAR
CONCLUSION: STRENGHTENING OUR

UNDERSTANDING OF THE CULTURAL
DIMENSIONS OF BOUNDARIES
The reviewed literaturesuggests various typical configurationsof symbolic and
social boundaries.An integrativeeffort is needed in orderto find similarities,or
typicalconfigurations,acrosscases. Fromthis, we will be ableto move towardmore
generalstatementsaboutthe relationshipbetweensymbolicandsocial boundaries,
including those about the conditions under which certaintypes of incongruities
between symbolic and social boundariesemerge.
Some of the emergingconfigurationscan be summarilydescribedas follows:
(a) Symbolic boundariesare often used to enforce, maintain,normalize, or rationalize social boundariesas exemplifiedby the use of culturalmarkersin class
distinctions(Bourdieu& Passeron1972, transl.1977,Bourdieu1984, Vallas2001),
or cognitive stereotypingin gender inequalities (Epstein 2000, 1988). (b) Symbolic boundaries,however,are also employedto contest and reframethe meaning
of social boundaries.Fast food workers in Harlem or working class people in
Chicagouse symbolic boundariesto combatdownwardsocial mobility (Newman
1999, Kefalas2002). (c) Therearealso cross-culturaldifferencesin how symbolic
boundariesare linked to social boundaries.The same social boundarycan be coupled with differentsymbolic boundariesas class distinctionsin Europeare tied to
the symbolicboundarybetweenhigh cultureandpopularculture(Bourdieu1984),
whereas in the United States they are linked to the symbolic boundarybetween
omnivoresand univores(Bryson 1996, Erickson 1996, Lamont 1992, Peterson&
Kern1996). Immigrantsare also likely to transportsymbolic boundariesfrom one
culturalcontextto another(Waters1999, Ong 1996, Morawska2001). (d) In some
cases symbolicboundariesmay become so salientthatthey takethe place of social
boundaries.This is exemplifiedby the case of Germanywhere the disappearance
of social boundariesbetween East and West Germanswas not followed by the
disappearanceof symbolic boundariesbut ratherby intensificationof the latter
(Berdahl 1999, Glaeser 2000, Borneman 1992b). Imaginedsymbolic communities, maintainedby new informationtechnologies, are also organizedexclusively
by symbolic boundariesas opposedto social networkbased communities(Cerulo
1997, Swidler 2001).
The study of the interplayof symbolic and social boundariesis just one possible strategythatcan be used to highlightthe similaranalyticalconcernsof a vast
body of research.Here we briefly sketch three alternativestrategies,which can
also be followed in orderto systematizeand integratethe existing literature.The
first approachcould center on the study of the properties of boundariessuch as
permeability,salience,durability,andvisibilityandcouldinvestigatetheconditions
underwhich boundariesassumecertaincharacteristics.In the literatureon professions andscience, as well as in the workof Bourdieu(1984), it is often posited that
identificationgenerallyproceedsthroughexclusion andthatboundariesare salient
and mostly have to do with demarcation.InsteadLamont(1992), Bryson (1996),
SYMBOLIC
BOUNDARIES
187
Erickson (1996), and Peterson & Kern (1996) have framed this as an empirical
issue by exploringlevels of tolerance,exclusion, and cultural"omnivorousness."
Along the same lines, the recentanthropologicalliteraturehas stressedthe permeability of social boundariesand hybridizationprocesses. Territorialbordershave
come to be conceived as interstitialzones that produce liminality and creolization. Much more needs to be done in terms of exploring the conditions under
which boundariesgeneratedifferentiationor dissolve to producehybridityor new
formsof categorization.Moreover,the porousnessof boundariesshouldbe studied
systematicallyacross class, race/ethnicand gender/sexuallines.
The second approachcould undertakethe systematic cataloguing of the key
mechanismsassociatedwith the activation,maintenance,transpositionor the dispute, bridging, crossing and dissolution of boundaries.The reviewed literature
suggests severalmechanismscentralto the productionof boundaries.On the cognitive/socialpsychologicalside, for instance,Ridgeway(1997) andJenkins(1996)
describe processes of stereotyping,self-identification,and categorization.At the
level of discourse,Glaeser(2000) drawson rhetoricto pointto mechanismsof identification of the self such as metonymy,metaphor,and synecdoche, and Gieryn
describesthe "credibilitycontests"in science thattake the form of expulsion, expansion andprotectionof autonomy.Bowker& Star(1999) and Thevenot(1984),
for their part, focus not only on the exclusive aspects of boundaries,but also on
their role in connecting social groups and makingcoordinationpossible.1 Just as
Tilly (1998) systematized the mechanisms involved in the productionof social
boundaries,thereis a need for a more exhaustivegraspof its culturalmechanisms,
as well as of their articulationwith social mechanismsand cognitive mechanisms
(on this last point, see also McAdamset al. 2001). Focusingon such abstractmechanismswill help us move beyond an accumulationof disconnectedcase studiesall
too frequentin the researchon class, race, and gender.Developing a bettergrasp
of the differencemade by the content of symbolic boundariesin the construction
of cognitive and social boundariescould also be a real contributionfrom cultural
sociology to other,more strictlysocial structural,areasof sociological analysis.It
could also adda new dimensionto recentattemptsto rethinkclass analysis(Grusky
& Sorensen 1998, Portes2001).
A third approachcould integrate the existing literatureby focusing on the
theme of cultural membership.The notion of boundariesis crucial for analyzing how social actors constructgroups as similarand differentand how it shapes
theirunderstandingof theirresponsibilitiestowardsuch groups(Lamont2000). In
line with recent studies of commensurationprocesses that analyze how different
entitiescomparebasedon variousmetrics(Espeland& Stevens 1998), we advocate
ISymbolicboundariesin the social sciences and humanitiesdisciplines (particularlyconcerning the content of sharednotion of "top-notch"and "less stellar"work) is an area of
coordinationthathas been neglectedto date, and thatmay deeply enrichour understanding
of differencesandsimilaritiesbetweenthe more interpretiveandempiricallybased (as well
as disciplinaryand interdisciplinary)academicfields (Lamont& Guetzkow2001).
188
LAMONT 3 MOLNAR
a more elaboratephenomenologyof group classification,i.e., of how individuals

thinkof themselvesas equivalentandsimilarto, orcompatiblewith,others(Lamont
2001b, Lamontet al. 2001); and of how they "perform"theirdifferencesand similarities(Jackson2001). We need to focus especially on hiddenassumptionsconcerningthe measuringsticksused by higherandlower statusgroups,a topic largely
neglectedto date.Forinstance,we may examineclosely how blacksconsiderthemselves as similarto or differentfrom otherracialgroups,how they go aboutrebutting racist stereotypes,and when they do so (Lamont& Molnar2001). We should
also considerthe extentto whichgroupsbelieve thatit is necessaryfor themto "take
care of their own kind"or adopt a more universalisticstance-based on various
metricsof compatibilityandcommonness.This wouldmove the studyof symbolic
boundariestowarda simultaneousconcern for inclusion and exclusion, towarda
sociology of "everydaycosmopolitanism"-to borrowfrom the vocabularyof political theorists, and toward a sociological understandingof the distributionof
variousconceptions and practicesof universalismsand particularisms(along the
lines developedby Heimer 1992). It would also provideuseful complementto the
voluminous literatureon the egalitarianrhetoricproducedby anti-classist, antiracist, and anti-sexistsocial movementsin the United States and elsewhere.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank our generous colleagues for their useful comments and suggestions:
RainerBaub6ck,Paul Di Maggio, FrankDobbin, CynthiaFuch Epstein, Marion
Tom Gieryn, Paul Lichterman,Dale Miller, Mario Small,
Fourcade-Gourinchas,
Levent Soysal, Mitchell Stevens, and Art Stinchcombe.We also express our appreciationto Rosa Pizzi for her technicalassistance.
The AnnualReviewof Sociologyis online at http://soc.annualreviews.org
LITERATURECITED
Abbott A. 1988. The System of Professions:
An Essay on the Division of ExpertLabor.
Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
AbbottA. 1995. Thingsof boundaries.Soc. Res.
62(4):857-82
AlexanderJ. 1992. Citizensandenemy as symbolic classification: on the polarizing discourse of civil society. See Lamont& Fournier 1992, pp. 289-308. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
AlvarezRR Jr. 1995. The Mexican-USborder:
the making of an anthropologyof borderlands.Annu.Rev.Anthropol.24:447-70
Anderson B. 1983/1991. Imagined Communi-
ties: Reflectionson the Originand Spreadof

Nationalism.London:Verso
AndersonE. 1999. Code of the Street.Decency,
Violence,and theMoralLifeof theInnerCity.
New York:Norton
AnzalduiaGE. 1987. Borderlands, La Frontera: TheNew Meztisa.San Francisco:Spinsters/AuntLute
Barth F. 1969. Introduction.In Ethnic Groups
and Boundaries:TheSocial Organizationof
CultureDifference, ed. F Barth, pp. 9-38.
London:Allen & Unwin
Baub6ck R. 1998. The crossing and blurring
of boundaries in international migration
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
challenges for social and political theory.
In Blurred Boundaries: Migration, Ethnicity, Citizenship,ed. R Baub6ck, J Rundell,
pp. 17-52. Brookfield,CT:Ashgate
BeckerP. 1999. Congregationsin Conflict:Cultural Models of Local Religious Life. New
York:CambridgeUniv. Press
BenderT. 1984. The erosion of public culture:
cities, discourses, and professional disciplines. In The Authorityof Experts. Studies in
History and Theory,ed. TL Haskell,pp. 84107. Bloomington:IndianaUniv. Press
BerdahlD. 1999. Wherethe WorldEnded:Reunificationand Identityin the GermanBorderland.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Blair-Loy M. 2001. Culturalconstructionsof
family schemas: the case of women finance
executives. GenderSoc. 15(5):687-709
Blumer H. 1958. Race prejudiceas a sense of
groupposition. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1:3-7
Bobo L, HutchingsVL. 1996. Perceptionsof
racial group competition: extending Blumer's theory of group position to a multiracial social context.Am. Sociol. Rev.61:95172
BoltanskiL, Th6venotL. 1991. De la justification. Les economies de la grandeur. Paris:
Gallimard
Borneman J. 1992a. Belonging in the Two
Berlins: Kin, State,Nation. New York:CambridgeUniv. Press
Boneman J. 1992b. State, territory,and identity formationin the postwarBerlins, 19451989. Cult.Anthropol.7(1):45-63
Bourdieu P. 1979. Distinction: A Social Critiqueof theJudgmentofTaste.Transl.R Nice,
1984. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press
(FromFrench)
BourdieuP. 1984. HomoAcademicus.Transl.P
Collier, 1988. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv.
Press
BourdieuP, PasseronJ-C. 1972. Reproduction
in Education,Society,and Culture.Transl.R
Nice, 1977. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage (From
French)
Bowker G, StarSL. 1999. Sorting ThingsOut:
Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press
189
BrekhusW. 1996. Social markingandthe mental coloring of identity: sexual identity construction and maintenance in the United
States. Sociol. Forces 11:497-521
Brewer MB, Brown RJ. 1998. Intergrouprelations. See Gilbertet al. 1998, pp. 554-94
BrubakerR. 1992. Citizenshipand Nationhood
in France and Germany. Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniv. Press
BrubakerR,CooperF.2000. Beyond"identity."
TheorySoc. 29:1-47
Bryson B. 1996. "Anythingbut heavy metal":
symbolicexclusionandmusicaldislikes.Am.
Sociol. Rev.61(5):884-99
Calhoun C. 1991. Indirect relationships and
imaginedcommunities:large-scalesocial integrationandthe transformationof everyday
life. In Social Theoryfor a Changing Society, ed. P Bourdieu,JS Coleman.pp. 95-121.
Boulder, CO: Westview, NY: Russell Sage
Found.
Cerulo KA. 1997. Identity construction:new
issues, new directions. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
23:385409
Collins R. 1979. The CredentialSociety. New
York:Academic
Collins R. 2001. InteractionChainRituals.Unpublishedms., Dep. Sociology, Univ. Penn.
Connell RW. 1987. Gender and Power. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. Press
CookKS, Fine GA, HouseJ. 1995. Sociological
Perspectivesin Social Psychology.Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Cornell S, HartmannD. 1997. Ethnicity and
Race. MakingIdentityin a Changing World.
ThousandOaks, CA: Pine Fore
Crocker J, Major B, Steele C. 1998. Social
stigma. See Gilbertet al. 1998, pp. 504-53
DarntonR. 1984. Philosopherstrim the tree of
knowledge: the epistemological strategyof
the Encyclopedie. In The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French CulturalHistory,pp. 191-215. New York:Basic
Books
Davis JF. 1991. Who's Black? One Nation's
Definition.UniversityPark:Penn.StateUniv.
Press
Davis NZ. 1975. Society and Culturein Early
190
LAMONT * MOLNAR
Modern France. Stanford, CA: Stanford

Univ. Press
Desrosieres A. 1993. The Politics of Large
Numbers:A History of Statistical Reasoning. Trans.C Naish, 1998. Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniv. Press (FromFrench)
DiMaggioP. 1987. Classificationin art.Am.Sociol. Rev. 52:440-55
DiMaggio P. 1997. Culture and cognition.
Annu.Rev. Sociol. 23:263-87
DiTomaso N. 2000. Why anti-discrimination
policies are not enough: the legacies and
consequences of affirmationinclusion-for
whites.Presentedat Annu.Meet. Am. Sociol
Assoc., 38th. Washington,DC
DurkheimE. 1965. The ElementaryForms of
Religious Life. New York:Free Press
Ellemers N. 1993. The influence of social
structuralvariableson identity management
strategies.Eur.J. Soc. Psychol. 18:497-513
EmirbayerM. 1997. Manifestofor a relational
sociology. Am. J. Sociol. 103(2):281-318
Epstein CF 1981. Womenin Law. New York:
Basic Books
Epstein CF. 1992. Tinker-bellsand pinups:the
construction and reconstructionof gender
boundariesat work. See Lamont& Founier
1992, pp. 232-56
Epstein CF. 1988. Deceptive Distinctions. Sex,
Gender,and Social Order.New Haven, CT:
Yale Univ. Press
EpsteinCF. 2000. BorderCrossings:The Constraints of TimeNorms in the Transgression
of Genderand ProfessionalRoles. Presented
atthe Am. Sociol. Assoc. Meet.,Washington,
DC
EricksonB. 1996. Culture,class, and connections. Am.J. Sociol. 102:217-51
EriksonK. 1966. WaywardPuritans.A Studyin
the Sociology of Deviance. New York:Wiley
EspelandWN, Stevens ML. 1998. Commensurationas a social process. Annu.Rev. Sociol.
24:31343
EspirituYL. 2000. "Wedon't sleep aroundlike
white girls do": family, culture,and gender
in FilipinaAmericanlives. Signs 26(2):41540
Fiske ST. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and
discrimination.See Gilbert et al. 1998, pp.

357-411
Foucault M. 1970. The Order of Things: An
Archeologyof the HumanSciences. London:
Tavistock
Fourcade-GourinchasM. 2000. The national
trajectories of economic knowledge: discipline and profession in the United States,
Great Britain and France. PhD thesis, HarvardUniv., 413 pp.
FullerS. 1991. Disciplinaryboundariesandthe
rhetoricof the social sciences. Poetics Today
12(2):301-5
Gal S, IrvineJT. 1995. The boundariesof languages and disciplines:how ideologies constructdifference.Soc. Res. 62(4):967-1001
GamsonJ. 1998. FreaksTalkBack. TabloidTalk
Shows and Sexual Nonconformity.Chicago:
Univ. ChicagoPress
Gamson W. 1992. TalkingPolitics. New York:
CambridgeUniv. Press
Gans H. 1999. The possibility of a new racial
hierarchyin the twenty-firstcenturyUnited
States. In The CulturalTerritoriesof Race:
Blackand WhiteBoundaries,ed. M Lamont,
pp. 371-90. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
New York:Russell Sage Found.
GazianoE. 1996. Ecological metaphorsas scientific boundary-work:innovation and authority in interwar sociology and biology.
Am.J. Sociol. 101:874-907
Gecas V, BurkePJ. 1995. Self andidentity.See
Cook et al.1995, pp. 41-67
GersonJM, Peiss K. 1985. Boundaries,negotiation,consciousness:reconceptualizinggender relations.Soc. Probl. 32:317-31
Gieryn TF. 1983. Boundary-work and the
demarcationof science from non-science:
strainsand interestsin professionalinterests
of scientists.Am. Sociol. Rev.48:781-95
Gieryn TF. 1995. Boundaries of science. In
Handbookof Science and TechnologyStudies, ed. S Jasanoff, G Markle, J Petersen,
T Pinch, pp. 393-443, ThousandOaks, CA:
Sage
Gieryn TF. 1999. CulturalBoundaries of Science: CredibilityOn theLine. Chicago:Univ.
Chicago Press
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindszey G, eds. 1998.
Handbookof Social Psychology. New York:
McGraw-Hill
Gilens M. 1999. WhyAmericansHate Welfare:
Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty
Policy. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Glaeser A. 2000. Divided in Unity: Identity,
Germany and the Berlin Police. Chicago:
Chicago Univ. Press
Gould RV. 1995. Insurgent Identities. Class,
Community,andProtestinParisfrom1848 to
the Commune.Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress
Grusky DBV, Sorensen JB. 1998. Can class
analysis be salvaged? Am. J. Soc. 103(5):
1187-234
GuptaA, FergusonJ. 1992. Space, identity,and
the politics of difference. Cult. Anthropol.
7(1):6-24
GusfieldJ. 1963.SymbolicCrusade:StatusPolitics and the American TemperanceMovement.Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press
Guti6rrezDG. 1999. Migration,emergentethnicity,andthe "thirdspace":the shiftingpolitics of nationalismin GreaterMexico.J. Am.
Hist. 86(2):481-518
Hacking I. 1992. Worldmaking by kind making: child abusefor example.In How Classification Works:Nelson Goodmanamong the
Social Sciences. ed. M Douglas, DH Hull,
pp. 180-238. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniv.
Press
Hall JR. 1992.The capital(s)of cultures:a nonholistic approachto status situations:class,
gender,and ethnicity."See Lamont& Fournier 1992, pp. 257-88
Halle D. 1993. Inside Culture.Art and Class in
theAmericanHome.Chicago:Univ.Chicago
Press
HannerzU. 1992. CulturalComplexity.Studies
in the Social Organizationof Meaning.New
York:ColumbiaUniv. Press
Hays S. 1996. The CulturalContradictionsof
Motherhood.New Haven:Yale Univ. Press
Hechter M. 1975. Internal Colonialism: The
Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Heimer CA. 1992. Doing your job and help-
191
ing your friends:universalisticnorms about

obligations to particularothers in networks.
In Networks and Organizations:Structure,
Form,and Action, ed. N Nohria,RG Eccles,
pp. 143-64. Boston:HarvardBus. Sch. Press
Held D. 1995. Democracy and Global Order.
New York:CambridgeUniv. Press
Herzfeld M. 1996. Cultural Intimacy. Social Poetics in the Nation State. London:
Routledge
Hogg MA, AbramsD. 1988. Social Identification. London:Routledge
HollanderJA, Howard JA. 2000. Social psychological theorieson social inequality.Soc.
Psychol. Q. 63:338-51
HorowitzDL. 1985.Ethnic Groupsin Conflict.
Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
HowardJA. 1995. Social cognition. See Cook
et al. 1995, pp. 90-117
Hunter A. 1974. Symbolic Communities.The
Persistence and Change of Chicago's Local
Communities.Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
IgnatieffM. 1993. Blood and Belonging. Journeys into the New Nationalism. New York:
Farrar,Straus& Giroux
Ikegami E. 2000. A sociological theory of
publics: identity and culture as emergent
propertiesin networks.Soc. Res. 67(4):9891029
Jackson JL. 2001. Harlemworld:Doing Race
and Class in ContemporaryBlack America.
Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress
JenkinsR. 1996. Social Identity.London:Routledge
Kastoryano R. 1996. Negotiating Identities:
States and Immigrantsin France and Germany. Transl. B Harshav,2001. Princeton,
NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press (FromFrench)
Kay F, HaganJ. 1999. Cultivatingclients in the
competitionfor partnership:gender and the
organizationalrestructuringof law firms in
the 1990s. Law Soc. 33(3):517-56
KearneyM. 1991. Borders and boundariesof
stateandself at the end of the empire.J. Hist.
Sociol. 4(1):52-74
KearneyM. 1995. The local andthe global:the
anthropologyof globalization and transnationalism.Annu.Rev.Anthropol.24:547-65
192
LAMONT ? MOLNAR
Kefalas M. 2002. The Last Garden: Culture

and Place in a WhiteWorkingClass Chicago
Neighborhood.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press.
In press
Kymlicka W. 1995. MulticulturalCitizenship.
New York:OxfordUniv. Press
LamontM. 1992.Money,Morals,andManners:
The Culture of the French and American
Upper-MiddleClass. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Lamont M. 2000. The Dignity of Working
Men: Moralityand the Boundaries of Race,
Class, and Immigration.Cambridge, MA:
HarvardUniv.Press,New York:Russell Sage
Found.
LamontM. 2001a. Symbolicboundaries.InternationalEncyclopediaof the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. N Smelser, P Baltes.
Oxford:Elsevier
Lamont M. 2001b. Culture and identity. In
Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. J
Turner, pp. 171-85. New York: Kluwer
Acad./Plenum
LamontM, FournierM. eds. 1992. Cultivating
Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the
Making of Inequality. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Lamont M, Guetzkow JA. 2001. Evaluating
interdisciplinaryscholarship. Items Issues
Newsl. Soc. Sci. Res. Coun. 1(34):12-13
Lamont M, LareauA. 1988. Culturalcapital:
allusions,gaps andglissandosin recenttheoreticaldevelopments.Soc. Theory6(2):15368
Lamont M, Molnir V. 2001. How Blacks use
consumptionto shape their collective identity: evidence from African-Americanmarketing specialists.J. Consum.Cult. 1(1):3135
Lamont M, Morning A, Mooney M. 2001.
NorthAfricanimmigrantsrespondto French
racism: demonstratingequivalence through
universalism.Racial Ethn.Stud.In press
Lamont M, Thevenot L. eds. 2000. Rethinking ComparativeCulturalSociology: Repertoiresof Evaluationin Franceand the United
States. New York/London:CambridgeUniv.
Press, Paris:Presses Maison Sci. l'Homme
Lareau A. 2000. Contours of childhood: social class differencesin children'sdaily lives.

Work. Pap., Center for Working Families,
Univ. Calif., Berkeley
Lee SM. 1993. Racial classificationin the U.S.
census: 1890-1990. Ethn. Racial Stud. 16:
75-94
Levitt P. 2001. The TransnationalVillagers.
LichtermanP. 2001. Elusive Togetherness:Religion in the Questfor Civic Renewal. Dep.
Sociol., Univ. Wisc., Madison.Ms in prep.
LichtermanP. 2001. Elusive togetherness:religion in the quest for civic renewal. Univ.
Wisc., Madison,Ms. in prep.
Lieberson S. 2000. A Matter of Taste: How
Names, Fashions, and CultureChange. New
Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press
Lightfoot KG, Martinez A. 1995. Frontiers
andboundariesin archeologicalperspective.
Annu.Rev.Anthropol.24:471-92
L6fgren 0. 1999. Crossing borders. The nationalizationof anxiety.Ethnol.Scand.29:127
Logan JR, Alba RD, Leung SY. 1996. Immigrantaccess to white suburbs:a multiregion
comparison.Soc. Forces 74:851-81
Lorber J. 1984. WomenPhysicians. Careers,
Statusand Power. New York:Tavistock
Luker K. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of
Motherhood.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Malkki L. 1995. Purity and Exile: Violence,
Memory and National Cosmology among
Hutu Refugees in Tanzania.Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
ManzaJ. 1992. Classes, statusgroups, and social closure: a critiqueof neo-Weberiansocial theory. Curr.Perspect. Soc. Theor. 12:
275-302
MarkusHR, KitayamaS. 1991. Cultureandthe
self: implicationsfor cognition, emotion and
motivation.Psychol. Rev.98:224-53
MartinK. 2001. EngagingHegemonicFemininity: Gender and Appearance on Campus.
Presented at Sociol. Colloq., Univ. Mich.,
March
Marx K. 1963. The Eighteenth Brumaire of
Louis Napoleon. New York:Int. Publ.
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
Massey D, Denton NA. 1993.AmericanApartheid: Segregation and the Making of the
Underclass.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv.
Press
McAdamD, TarrowS, Tilly C. 2001. Dynamics
of Contention.New York:CambridgeUniv.
Press
Melluci A. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the InformationAge. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Press
Moore K. 1996. Organizingintegrity:American science and the creationof public interest organizations,1955-1975. Am.J. Sociol.
101(6):1592-627
MorawskaE. 2001. Cultural repertoires'in a
structurationprocess. Theoretical and research implications. Presented at Annu.
Meet. Am. Sociol Assoc., 39th, Anaheim,
CA
NewmanKS. 1999.No ShameinMyGame:The
WorkingPoor in the Inner City. New York:
Knopf
Nippert-Eng CE. 1995. Home and Work.
Ong A. 1996. Culturalcitizenship as subjectmaking.Immigrantsnegotiateracialandcultural boundariesin the United States. Curr.
Anthropol.37(5):737-62
Parkin F. 1974. Strategies of closure in class
formation.In The Social Analysis of Class
Structure,pp. 1-18. London:Tavistock
Pattillo-McCoyM. 1999. Black Picket Fences.
Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle
Class. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Peterson RA, Kern R. 1996. Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore.Am. Sociol. Rev. 61:900-7
PortesA. 2001. Leaving the ancestorsbehinds:
the case for a flexible approachto class analysis. Polit. Power Soc. Theory 14:33345
Portes A, RumbautRG. 2001. Legacies. The
Story of the ImmigrantSecond Generation.
Prentice DA, Miller DT. 1999. Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming
Group Conflicts. New York: Russell Sage
Found.
Ragin CC. 1987. The ComparativeMethod:
193
MovingBeyondQualitativeand Quantitative
Strategies.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Reicher S, Hopkins N. 2001. Psychology and
the end of history.A critiqueand a proposal
for the psychology of social categorization.
Polit. Psychol. 22(2):383-407
ReskinBB. 2000. TheorizingEmploymentDiscrimination.Presentedat InequalitySummer
Inst., Multidisciplinaryprogramon Inequality and Social Policy, HarvardUniv., June
14-16
Reskin BB, HartmannH, eds. 1986. Women's
Work,Men's Work:Sex Segregationon the
Job. Washington,DC: Natl. Acad. Press
Ridgeway CL. 1997. Interactionand the conservation of gender inequality:considering
employment.Am. Sociol. Rev.62:218-35
RiederJ. 1985. Canarsie:TheJews andItalians
of Brooklynagainst Liberalism.Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUniv. Press
Roediger D. 1991. The Wages of Whiteness:
Race and the Makingof the AmericanWorking Class. London:Verso
Rosaldo R. 1993. Cultureand Truth:The Remakingof Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon
Rosenfield S. 1998. Social Inequalityand the
Self. Presented at Culture and Inequality
Workshop,Dep. Sociol., PrincetonUniv.,NJ
RueschemeyerD, Skocpol T, eds. 1996. States,
Social Knowledge,and the Origins of Modern Social Policies. Princeton,NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Saguy A. 2002. Defining Sexual Harassment
in France and the United States. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press. In press
Sahlins P. 1989. Boundaries: The Making of
France and Spain in the Pyrenees.Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Sarfatti-LarsonM. 1979. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press
Schwartz B. 1981. Vertical Classification. A
Study in Structuralismand the Sociology of
Knowledge.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Sewell WH Jr. 1992. A theoryof structure:duality, agency, and transformation.Am. J. Sociol. 98:1-29
ShanahanS, Olzak S. 1999. The effects of immigrantdiversityand ethnic competitionon
194
LAMONT ? MOLNAR
collective conflict in urbanAmerica: an assessmentof two momentsof mass migration,

1869-1924 and 1965-1993. J. Am. Ethn.
Hist. 18(3):30-64
SidaniusJ, PrattoF. 1999. Social Dominance:
An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression.New York:Cambridge
Univ. Press
Simmel G. 1971. The stranger.In Individuality and Social Forms, pp. 143-50. Chicago:
Univ. ChicagoPress
Small ML. 1999. Departmentalconditionsand
the emergenceof new disciplines:two cases
in the legitimation of African-American
Studies. TheorySoc. 28:659-707
Somers MR. 1994. Reclaiming the epistemological "Other":narrativeandthe social constitutionof identity.In Social Theoryand the
Politics ofIdentity,ed. C Calhoun,pp. 37-99.
Cambridge,MA: Blackwell
Soysal Y. 1994. Limitsof Citizenship:Migrants
and Postnational Membership in Europe.
SpinnerJ. 1994. TheBoundariesofCitizenship:
Race, Ethnicity,and Nationality in the Liberal State. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press
StarSL, GriesemerJR. 1989. Institutionalecology, "translations"and boundary objects:
amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's
Museum of VertebrateZoology, 1907-39.
Soc. Stud.Sci. 19(3):387-420
StarrP. 1992. Social categories and claims in
the LiberalState. Soc. Res. 59:262-95
Stein A. 1997. Sex and Sensibility. Stories of a
Lesbian Generation.Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
StinchcombeAL. 1995. Sugar Island Slavery
in the Age of Enlightenment.The Political
Economyof the CaribbeanWorld.Princeton,
NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press
Suttles G. 1968. The Social Life of the Slum.
Swidler A. 2001. Talk of Love. How Culture
Matters.Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press
Tajfel H, TurnerJC. 1985. The social identity
theory of intergroupbehavior. In Psychology of IntergroupRelations, ed. S Worchel,
WG Austin, pp. 7-24. Chicago: NelsonHall

TamirY. 1993. LiberalNationalism.Princeton,
NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press
TaylorC. 1992. Multiculturalismand the Politics of Recognition.Princeton,NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Taylor V, Whittier N. 1992. Collective identity in social movement communities: lesbian feminist mobilization. In Frontiers in
Social MovementTheory, ed. A Morris, C
Mueller,pp. 104-29. New Haven, CT: Yale
Univ. Press
Thelen D. 1999. Rethinking history and the
nation-state:Mexico and the United States.
J. Am. Hist. 86(2):439-53
Thevenot L. 1984. Rules and implements:investmentin forms. Soc. Sci. Inf. 23(2): 1-45
Tilly C. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Tilly C. 2001. Political Identities in Changing Polities. Keynote address,Conf. on RedefiningEurope.New YorkUniv.,November
30
Vallas SP. 2001. Symbolic boundariesand the
new divisionof labor:engineers,workersand
the restructuringof factory life. Res. Soc.
Stratif Mobility 18:3-37
VerderyK. 1994. Ethnicity, nationalism, and
state-making. Ethnic Groups Boundaries:
Past andFuture.In TheAnthropologyof Ethnicity. Beyond "EthnicGroups and Boundaries," ed. H Vermeulen,C Govers, pp. 3358. Amsterdam:Het Spinhuis
WagnerP,Hirschon-WeissC, WittrockB, WollmannH. 199la. Social Sciences and Modern
States. National Experiencesand Theoretical Crossroads.Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
WagnerP. WittrockB, Whitley R. eds. 1991b.
Discourses on Society. The Shaping of the
Social Sciences Disciplines. Sociology of
the Sciences Yearbook.Vol. XV. Dordrecht:
KluwerAcademic
WatersMC. 1999. BlackIdentities.WestIndian
ImmigrantDreams and AmericanRealities.
New York:Russell Sage Found./Cambridge,
SYMBOLICBOUNDARIES
WeberM. 1978. Economy and Society, Vol. 1.
West C, ZimmermanD. 1987. Doing gender.
GenderSoc. 1(1):125-51
White H. 1992. A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv.
Press
Williams CL. 1995. Still a Man's World:Men
Who Do "Women's"Work.Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Wilson TM, Donnan H, eds. 1998. Border
Identities: Nation and State at InternationalFrontiers.New York:CambridgeUniv.
Press
WuthnowR. 1989. Communitiesof Discourse:
Ideology and Social Structure in the Ref-
195
ormation,the Enlightenment,and European

Socialism. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniv.
Press
Young A Jr. 2002. The Minds of Black Men:
MakingSense of Mobility,Opportunity,and
FutureLife Chances. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. In press
Zelizer VA. 1985. Pricing the Priceless Child.
TheChangingSocial Valueof Children.New
York:Basic Books
ZerubavelE. 1997. Social Mindscapes:An Invitation to CognitiveSociology. Cambridge,
ZolbergAR, Long WL. 1999. Why Islamis like
Spanish: cultural incorporationin Europe
and the United States.Polit. Soc. 27(1):5-38

Annual Reviews Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Annual Review of Sociology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Reviews Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Annual Review of Sociology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences

Author(s): Michle Lamont and Virg Molnr

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:167-95

THE STUDYOF BOUNDARIESIN THE

Departmentof Sociology, Princeton University,Princeton,New Jersey 08540;

culture, identity, inequality, community, borders

patternsocial interactionin importantways. Moreover,only then can they become

SOCIAL AND COLLECTIVEIDENTITY

discriminationto nonconscious cognitive processes that bias evaluationbased on

"Classificationstruggles"to impose the superiorityof one's worldviewareequally

polarizationbetweenwhites andnonwhites:Immigrantsareled to identifywith the

Gender and sexual boundariesare a fertile terrainfor the study of boundary

PROFESSIONS, SCIENCE, AND KNOWLEDGE

Professions and Work

Science, Disciplines, and Knowledge

scientists attemptto attributeselected qualities to scientists, scientific methods,

systems where categories are constructedand often naturalized.The concept of

National Identity,SpatialBoundaries,Nation Building,

borders. The majority of the literaturethat probes these processes focuses on

CONCLUSION: STRENGHTENING OUR

a more elaboratephenomenologyof group classification,i.e., of how individuals

ties: Reflectionson the Originand Spreadof

Modern France. Stanford, CA: Stanford

discrimination.See Gilbert et al. 1998, pp.

ing your friends:universalisticnorms about

Kefalas M. 2002. The Last Garden: Culture

Lareau A. 2000. Contours of childhood: social class differencesin children'sdaily lives.

collective conflict in urbanAmerica: an assessmentof two momentsof mass migration,

WG Austin, pp. 7-24. Chicago: NelsonHall

ormation,the Enlightenment,and European

You might also like