Top-down, Bottom-up Paper.
Chantel Smith
Prof. Frederick F. Wherry
Soc 415 Culture and Consumption
7 October 2010
The SEVEN-Facet Model of Cultural Production
“No human exists except seeped in the culture of his time and place. The falsely abstracted individual has been sadly misleading” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979:42). The same can be said of products; they exist with certain meanings attributed to them by groups of people in a specific time and place. Peterson and Anand’s six-facet model of the production of culture only recognizes the structural processes that contribute to the significant changes in what cultural products people are consuming. Yet a cultural perspective can be integrated with the six-facet model to account for the fact that symbols and meaning shape cultural products to come.
The Six-Facet Model
The six-facet model consists of technology, law and regulation, industry structure, organizational structure, occupational careers, and market. These facets are interconnected and when a change in one occurs it is likely that the others will shift in response, or as Peterson and Anand explain “the facets appear to be coupled enough that a major change in one of the facets can start a cycle of destabilization and reorganization in the entire production nexus”(2004:318).
New technologies advance and provide opportunities or necessities for all the other facets to accommodate the new product. The ability of new technologies to dramatically alter culture will be explained later in the example of birth control pills.
Law and regulation molds the direction in which a certain field of production grows by setting limitations or creating incentives. Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl” and its publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti were tried in court for breaking obscenity laws. The court ruled that the poem had cultural merit and thus obscenity laws were loosened allowing for the rise of the Beat poetry and Beat culture.
Industry structure, organizational structure, and occupational careers are similar facets of cultural production; the industry concerns the macro-level structures of production, the organizational with the meso-level, and occupational careers concern individuals or the micro-level. Industry structure is a question of how many competitors there are. Is the industry dominated by monopolies? Conglomerates? Or small business owners? Organizational structure asks what organizational style the typical firm in the industry prefers? Hierarchical? Communalistic? Bureaucratic? Streamlined? Is there a clear division of labor? At the micro level, the occupational career facet would ask if the worker possesses job security within one company for life or is the work freelance, switching companies throughout one’s career? Are there gatekeepers who decide who is a legitimate worker in this field? And do workers have a clear ladder of advancement at their job?
The shift from midwives to doctors as the attendants at birth exemplifies these three structural facets well. Midwives had been women with folk knowledge of reproduction and birth as well as birth control methods. They were called upon when needed (occupational career). The organization of midwives was generally communalistic perhaps with a midwife and an apprentice attending the birth (organizational structure) and the ‘industry’ was not dominated by competition yet it could be characterized by what are now called many ‘small business owners’. But with the move towards professionalization of the birthing industry, formal schooling and certification became mandatory (gatekeepers at the occupational level). The organizational structures became hierarchical with a clear line of prestige separating obstetricians and nurses. With these changes came the move of the birthing process from individual homes into large hospitals (industry structure). These three facets of change were interconnected with the remaining facets, including the market.
The last facet of cultural production is the market. Markets are created when the tastes and desires of consumers are conceptualized as distinct categories and thus producers of culture only have those categories available in which to articulate their tastes. In other words “once consumers tastes are reified as a market, those in the field tailor their actions to create cultural goods like those that are currently most popular” (Peterson and Anand 2004:317).
The Seventh Facet
I propose that a seventh facet of the production of culture be added: symbols and meanings. Symbols and meanings are socially constructed by people. To leave out this facet would leave out the agency of individuals or groups to influence the production of cultural goods. The six-facet model is a top-down approach to change in cultural forms - only structures have the power to influence - and yet several sociologists agree that individuals or social groups aren’t simply passive consumers of culture (Chin 2001; Douglas and Isherwood 1979; Fantasia 1995; Yan 1997). In “Brand Communities” Muniz and O’Guinn state that consumers are active and interact with marketers to create the meanings of brands, consumers are not “simple dupes or boosters of false consciousness” (2001:428). The seventh facet, symbols and meanings, integrates a bottom-up approach with Peterson and Anand’s top-down structural model. Thus the struggle to define a cultural form from either the bottom-up or the top-down can often be a political process, as will be shown by a new cultural product introduced in the 1970s.
The Culture of Birth Control Pills Case: A Test of the SEVEN-facet Model’s Utility
The “kind of thing” (Fantasia 1995:204), in other words, social meaning, a cultural product was before the influence of the six facet model and the “kind of thing” it becomes influences the degree to which the process changes a given culture. The invention of store bought, sliced, white bread may have emancipated the middle-class white woman from some household chores but not to the same degree that the availability of birth control (BC) pills emancipated her. This is due to the political standing or social meaning of sliced white bread versus birth control pills, both prior to and following their journeys through the six-facet model.
The top-down, structural model is still important in the explanation of the emergence of BC pills as a new cultural form. The structure of the US’s health industry has heavily relied on pharmaceuticals. This acculturates US residents to a certain level of comfortability with pills and discomfort with other methods of contraception. BC pills continuation as the preferred form of birth control in the US can be attributed to this influence of the industry structure regardless of the fact that the intrauterine device (IUD) is more effective and more quickly reversible. The structure of the health industry (heavily weighted towards pharmaceuticals) is still a practical means of explaining the production of culture in this case.
One could argue that the demand by women for BC was met top-down by the industry by produced condoms and diaphragms. Yet a bottom-up approach, one that provides people and groups with agency and the power to interact with the meaning of goods, is called for as well. The meaning behind the desire for BC - that BC could give a woman control of her own reproduction and safety - was not yet met with these two cultural forms; condoms demanded the active participation of men and diaphragms could endanger the safety of a woman whose husband desired more children. The burgeoning women’s rights movement demanded a new form of BC that could be controlled by women, unlike condoms, and would be less conspicuous than diaphragms. This demand was met by the industry and BC pills were produced.
A similar oscillation between structural and cultural forces can be seen in the recent delays of the FDA in releasing the emergency contraceptive pill (EC) from its prescription only status. Contraceptives were de-regulated by the government in the early 1970s and subsequently available to all women regardless of marital status. This structural change in law contributed to the cultural “free love” movement. Yet in 2009 the FDA tabled the application for over the counter status of Plan B, a brand of EC. By many groups this delay was seen a political and atypical of the agency’s procedure. Many pro-choice and anti-choice groups contacted the FDA voicing their opinions. Eventually the FDA granted over the counter status to women 18 and older while still requiring those under the age of 18 to obtain a prescription. This time around it was not the changes in law that contributed to the creation of culture but it was culture (social and moral activist culture and their competing definitions of a certain cultural good) that changed the law (which changes culture and cultural goods…). What birth control means to competing groups influences what the cultural product will become or the degree to which it is accepted into society.
This dialectic between top-down, structural and bottom-up, cultural (meaning and symbols) approaches to the production of culture has been shown to be mutually accommodating, not mutually exclusive. As Peterson and Anand themselves explain “the claim for the production perspective is that it is necessary to understanding culture and not that the perspective is sufficient for a full understanding” (2004:327).
Prof. Frederick F. Wherry
Soc 415 Culture and Consumption
7 October 2010
The SEVEN-Facet Model of Cultural Production
“No human exists except seeped in the culture of his time and place. The falsely abstracted individual has been sadly misleading” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979:42). The same can be said of products; they exist with certain meanings attributed to them by groups of people in a specific time and place. Peterson and Anand’s six-facet model of the production of culture only recognizes the structural processes that contribute to the significant changes in what cultural products people are consuming. Yet a cultural perspective can be integrated with the six-facet model to account for the fact that symbols and meaning shape cultural products to come.
The Six-Facet Model
The six-facet model consists of technology, law and regulation, industry structure, organizational structure, occupational careers, and market. These facets are interconnected and when a change in one occurs it is likely that the others will shift in response, or as Peterson and Anand explain “the facets appear to be coupled enough that a major change in one of the facets can start a cycle of destabilization and reorganization in the entire production nexus”(2004:318).
New technologies advance and provide opportunities or necessities for all the other facets to accommodate the new product. The ability of new technologies to dramatically alter culture will be explained later in the example of birth control pills.
Law and regulation molds the direction in which a certain field of production grows by setting limitations or creating incentives. Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl” and its publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti were tried in court for breaking obscenity laws. The court ruled that the poem had cultural merit and thus obscenity laws were loosened allowing for the rise of the Beat poetry and Beat culture.
Industry structure, organizational structure, and occupational careers are similar facets of cultural production; the industry concerns the macro-level structures of production, the organizational with the meso-level, and occupational careers concern individuals or the micro-level. Industry structure is a question of how many competitors there are. Is the industry dominated by monopolies? Conglomerates? Or small business owners? Organizational structure asks what organizational style the typical firm in the industry prefers? Hierarchical? Communalistic? Bureaucratic? Streamlined? Is there a clear division of labor? At the micro level, the occupational career facet would ask if the worker possesses job security within one company for life or is the work freelance, switching companies throughout one’s career? Are there gatekeepers who decide who is a legitimate worker in this field? And do workers have a clear ladder of advancement at their job?
The shift from midwives to doctors as the attendants at birth exemplifies these three structural facets well. Midwives had been women with folk knowledge of reproduction and birth as well as birth control methods. They were called upon when needed (occupational career). The organization of midwives was generally communalistic perhaps with a midwife and an apprentice attending the birth (organizational structure) and the ‘industry’ was not dominated by competition yet it could be characterized by what are now called many ‘small business owners’. But with the move towards professionalization of the birthing industry, formal schooling and certification became mandatory (gatekeepers at the occupational level). The organizational structures became hierarchical with a clear line of prestige separating obstetricians and nurses. With these changes came the move of the birthing process from individual homes into large hospitals (industry structure). These three facets of change were interconnected with the remaining facets, including the market.
The last facet of cultural production is the market. Markets are created when the tastes and desires of consumers are conceptualized as distinct categories and thus producers of culture only have those categories available in which to articulate their tastes. In other words “once consumers tastes are reified as a market, those in the field tailor their actions to create cultural goods like those that are currently most popular” (Peterson and Anand 2004:317).
The Seventh Facet
I propose that a seventh facet of the production of culture be added: symbols and meanings. Symbols and meanings are socially constructed by people. To leave out this facet would leave out the agency of individuals or groups to influence the production of cultural goods. The six-facet model is a top-down approach to change in cultural forms - only structures have the power to influence - and yet several sociologists agree that individuals or social groups aren’t simply passive consumers of culture (Chin 2001; Douglas and Isherwood 1979; Fantasia 1995; Yan 1997). In “Brand Communities” Muniz and O’Guinn state that consumers are active and interact with marketers to create the meanings of brands, consumers are not “simple dupes or boosters of false consciousness” (2001:428). The seventh facet, symbols and meanings, integrates a bottom-up approach with Peterson and Anand’s top-down structural model. Thus the struggle to define a cultural form from either the bottom-up or the top-down can often be a political process, as will be shown by a new cultural product introduced in the 1970s.
The Culture of Birth Control Pills Case: A Test of the SEVEN-facet Model’s Utility
The “kind of thing” (Fantasia 1995:204), in other words, social meaning, a cultural product was before the influence of the six facet model and the “kind of thing” it becomes influences the degree to which the process changes a given culture. The invention of store bought, sliced, white bread may have emancipated the middle-class white woman from some household chores but not to the same degree that the availability of birth control (BC) pills emancipated her. This is due to the political standing or social meaning of sliced white bread versus birth control pills, both prior to and following their journeys through the six-facet model.
The top-down, structural model is still important in the explanation of the emergence of BC pills as a new cultural form. The structure of the US’s health industry has heavily relied on pharmaceuticals. This acculturates US residents to a certain level of comfortability with pills and discomfort with other methods of contraception. BC pills continuation as the preferred form of birth control in the US can be attributed to this influence of the industry structure regardless of the fact that the intrauterine device (IUD) is more effective and more quickly reversible. The structure of the health industry (heavily weighted towards pharmaceuticals) is still a practical means of explaining the production of culture in this case.
One could argue that the demand by women for BC was met top-down by the industry by produced condoms and diaphragms. Yet a bottom-up approach, one that provides people and groups with agency and the power to interact with the meaning of goods, is called for as well. The meaning behind the desire for BC - that BC could give a woman control of her own reproduction and safety - was not yet met with these two cultural forms; condoms demanded the active participation of men and diaphragms could endanger the safety of a woman whose husband desired more children. The burgeoning women’s rights movement demanded a new form of BC that could be controlled by women, unlike condoms, and would be less conspicuous than diaphragms. This demand was met by the industry and BC pills were produced.
A similar oscillation between structural and cultural forces can be seen in the recent delays of the FDA in releasing the emergency contraceptive pill (EC) from its prescription only status. Contraceptives were de-regulated by the government in the early 1970s and subsequently available to all women regardless of marital status. This structural change in law contributed to the cultural “free love” movement. Yet in 2009 the FDA tabled the application for over the counter status of Plan B, a brand of EC. By many groups this delay was seen a political and atypical of the agency’s procedure. Many pro-choice and anti-choice groups contacted the FDA voicing their opinions. Eventually the FDA granted over the counter status to women 18 and older while still requiring those under the age of 18 to obtain a prescription. This time around it was not the changes in law that contributed to the creation of culture but it was culture (social and moral activist culture and their competing definitions of a certain cultural good) that changed the law (which changes culture and cultural goods…). What birth control means to competing groups influences what the cultural product will become or the degree to which it is accepted into society.
This dialectic between top-down, structural and bottom-up, cultural (meaning and symbols) approaches to the production of culture has been shown to be mutually accommodating, not mutually exclusive. As Peterson and Anand themselves explain “the claim for the production perspective is that it is necessary to understanding culture and not that the perspective is sufficient for a full understanding” (2004:327).