The Framework of Cultural Space

Robert N. St. Clair, University of Louisville


Ana Clotilde Thomé-Williams, Northwestern University

Introduction

    Time and Space are always theoretically linked because space grows and develops in time. In the model of linear time, this linkage is based on the linear movement of time over space (St. Clair, 2006).  What is missing from this temporal linear model is how cultural space changes over time. A resolution to this problem can be found in the insightful theories in the work of Foucault. In the Archeology f Knowledge (Foucault, 1969), he presents cultural space as the sedimentation of layers over time. A modification of this metaphor can be found in the sedimentation theory of time in space which envisions time as the accumulation of social practices layered in cultural space.  In other words, it differs from the linear model of time in that it argues that time is embedded in space: the present is embedded in the cultural past and the future is embedded in the cultural present.  What is important about this framework of the sedimentation of time is that it accounts for many contemporary cultural constructs such as globalization and modernization. This investigation explains how cultural functions within several of the contexts space: colonialism, cultural habitus (Bourdeiu, 1977, 1984),   global expansions, modernization, social scripts (St. Clair, Thomé-Williams, and Su, 2005), social structuration (Giddens, 1984) and mass media culture as the new-social-reality (Mehan and Wood, 1975).   In essence, it claims that cultural change involves the retaining of some cultural practices along with the modification, revision, and re-invention of events in the co-present.  Just as the present is embedded in the past, the future is embedded in the present.

Linear Time	Sedimentary Time
Time is based on movement over space	Time is embedded into strata of previous time. The present is embedded in the past; the future is embedded in the present
Space does not change; only time changes	Both space and time change and are evidenced as vertical strata.
There are four possible models of linear time.  In two of them, time moves in space (the future approaches the present); in the others people move in space and time remains immobile (one approaches the future).  .	Time is associated with cultural space. The present is embedded in the past; the future is embedded in the present.

 

The Sedimentation of Cultural Space

Defining culture is a difficult task because it brings into play so many different perspectives and one of the greatest dynamics has to do with change.  There are many models of change, but one of the most influential models of change can be found in the work of Thomas Kuhn (1964; 1971).  In this work, he argued that theoretical models of physics undergo structural changes from normal science to revolutionary science.  Although this model of change accounts for the motivation of change in the natural sciences, viz., problem solving, it does not meet provide much insight into other aspects of the phenomena of change, especially cultural change. 

In linear time, there is movement over space. The space remains the same and it is time that is moving.

 

In archeological time, there is the deposition of layers of cultural space over time. In contrast to linear time, space changes over time.

It is in the context of this model, that the concept of cultural emergence is investigated and discussed.  It is argued that the present is constantly being socially constructed to make sense of a plethora of daily routines that constitutive the sociology of everyday life.  These routines are integrated into the sociology of everyday life by individuals and this integration results in a sense of being centered and connected to the world.  Many daily routines, however, are not integrated and left unresolved.

It is argued that in the context of the emerging-present (co-present), new levels of consciousness are raised and this leads to the creation of new perspectives and new forms of knowledge. This information is integrated into the emerging-present of those who share in these new experiences.  When they are integrated into the daily experiences of individuals, they are also socially enforced by maintenance rituals and centered through meaning social interactions involving symbolic maintenance. 

 

THE CO-PRESENT

When the present is emerging into a new level of consciousness, the co-present, it comes into conflict with many of the more established patterns of the past.  These conflicts must be resolved.  They are usually accommodated by redefining the past in order for it to make sense in the cultural present.  The redefinition of the past is part of Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions.  After the new revolutionary science develops as the new reigning paradigm for a scientific community, the old patterns of thought are redefined in the context of this new framework.  The past is re-presented into a new model of the present.  It is taken out of its old context and placed into a new one.  The result is a structured form of historical anachronism, a historical discontinuity. 

Why is the study of cultural emergence important?  It is important because cultural change is a constantly occurring phenomenon.  The study of culture is not an established pronouncement of what happened in the past.  It is not a body of knowledge that has been defined by cultural experts as a super-organic entity.  Culture is dynamic.  It has to do with sets of practices that change and redefines itself from one generation to the next. It creates a new future (new-present) while redefining its past (old-present).  This new future is a directional marker.  It merely identifies the new forces that are taking place in the present and that will continue to take place in the future.  In order to make a transition into this new future, the old past has to be redefined. It must be broken down and reorganized so that it can be understood in the cultural present.

In order to explain the nature of the cultural dynamics outlined above, there are several concepts that need to be introduced and developed within the context of cultural emergence.  These concepts include the archeology of knowledge, the concept of re-presentation, the structure of scientific revolutions, zones of proximal development, structuration, structuration, and the process of re-writing the past in order to make sense of the present.

EXPLAINING THE DYNAMICS OF CULTURAL CHANGE

The traditional way of explaining change can be found in linguistic structuralism.  It is assumed within that framework that change occurs when one steady-state of knowledge is replaced by a new steady-state. Examples of this approach can be found in historical linguistics where a steady-state of the later past, Old English, developed into a steady-state of the more recent past, Middle English.  This is followed by the steady-state of the present, Modern English (Lehman, 1962). How does the movement from one state to the other take place?  The answer to this question is described ex post facto by describing the sound changes that took place within the transition from one steady-state to the other.  These laws are presented as the reason for the changes that occurred.  The problem with this account is that it omits a discussion of the many epistemic ruptures (Foucault, 1969) that motivated those changes. 

As noted earlier, Kuhn (1974) developed a theory of scientific revolutions within the natural sciences.  Once again, his model of change is based on paradigm shifts from one steady-state (normal science) to another (revolutionary science)   Kuhn argues that problem solving is the rationale for scientific change.  When certain anomalies occur within a scientific discipline, this prompts the scientific community to engage in a quest to resolve those problems.  There is a period of open discussion and debate (a period of crises) followed by the discovery of a workable solution in which a new paradigm emerges (period of scientific revolution).  Within the historiography of the discipline, these transitions are seen as scientific events and are treated as historical discontinuities. Foucault (1969) considered these periods of events to be distortions of the historical record. 

Within the humanities, models of structural change are not met with favor.  There are several reasons for this.  Although scientific paradigms may go unchanged for decades, events within modern culture are undergoing rapid change.  The cultural present is immersed in a wide range of social, economic, and technical changes.  The old method of defining a culture by containing it within the borders of a nation-state no longer holds.  Modern technology has enabled cultural events to readily transcend national boarders.  Many modern cultures are involved in the process of global exchange and this has resulted in complex patterns of cultural hybridity (Nederveen Pieterse, 2004). Not only are cultural patterns and belief systems exchanged, borrowed, or incorporated within each nation-state, but large masses of individuals have entered into an economic diaspora where they live and work in other countries as expatriates. Hence, culture can no longer be envisioned as a steady-state phenomenon defined over time.  It is far more dynamic.  It is constantly being redefined by a plethora of social and cultural forces within a cultural space. The forces of modernization have transcended local borders (Wallterstein, 2005).  All countries are either engaged in or influenced by a Capitalist World-economic system (Wallerstein, 1977; 1980; 1989). 

Model of Change	Re-presentation of Change	The parameters of Space
Structural Concept of Change	A system of ideas change over time.  The model is static. It accounts for changes from one period of homeostasis to another.	Concepts occur over time. Cultural space is not accounted for.
Archeological Concept of Change	Human practices are documented over time within the same geographical space	Modern space is superimposed over older layers of space over time
Sedimentation Concept of Change	The layers of the past are not separated from the layers of the present.  They are connected  within the collective consciousness of those living in the co-present.	Many layers of the past remain in the present. The past never dies. It is redefined, modified, or reinvented to fit the contexts of the co-present.

 

NEWLY EMERGENT-REALITIES

How do newly emergent-realties emerge from within a steady-state model?  For example, how did these emergent structures arise from normal science within a scientific discipline? These mechanisms of change occur within the period of crises.  What is important about the transition from normal science to revolutionary science is the fact that new structures emerge from the process of one paradigm shift to another.  These structures are either a recombination of old structures or a re-presentation of old structures.  This means that the past never dies.  It can and does undergo one of several changes; while undergoing these changes, the past embedded within a new context where it is restructured, re-presented, or reinvented.  This means that after the new paradigm of revolutionary science is established, the older form of normal science was re-written from the perspective of the new paradigm.  This is not a radical phenomenon.  Scientific textbooks also revise history and present information from the perspective of the new paradigm (Kuhn, 1962).  The old structures undergo a transformation.  They are elements of an embedded past that are reconstructed into a new component within the newer paradigm.  Once these redefined units are introduced into the realm of revolutionary science, they come to designate a different level of consciousness within the present.  They become part of the new-present. 

The past and the present interact in the co-present. The past never dies. It is either accepted within the new structural configuration of the present (the new-past) or it is modified or redefined within the contexts of the present (the new-present).  Ideas, concepts, beliefs, and practices may also be reinvented as newly emergent-realities.  These provide the epistemological framework for the structuration of the future.

The past remains as an active epistemological force that constitutes the present.  The present is embedded in the past.  It is redefined, modified in the co-present.  Those aspects of the co-present that have been reinvented constitute the future, a newly emergent-reality.   Hence, the present is embedded in the past; the future is embedded in the present.

 

The co-present contains the habitus of the past and the “newly emergent-realities” of the future.  The co-present is where the phenomenon of change takes place. It is where the older structures are re-presented into new entities, the new-past and the new-present.  Why does the past need to be restructured into different entities?  It is because the contexts characteristically associated with the past have changed.  When the present is embedded within the past, it brings into play new connotations and new associations that have to do with the co-present.  The past has be re-contextualized.  These re-presentations are important when they have been connected in a different way with the newly deposited layer of the co-present.  In this case they are associated the context of a new level of consciousness.  In the process of creating a co-present reality of structures within a paradigmatic shift, these re-presentations of the past may undergo further change.  They are either brought into the co-present as an unmodified structure (the past) and remain within the habitus of the co-present realm or they are endowed with a heightened level of change that its presence demands that the past be redefined (the new-past). 

 

           

The fact that the past is always undergoing redefinition raises an important question for scientific research.  What is the past?   This is the question that Foucault (1969) sought to address.  Why are such vagrant examples of historical anachronism allowed within a scientific enterprise?  Why are historical discontinuities created in the historiography of a discipline?  Can historical accounts of the past really be trusted?  Do they have authenticity?  Are primary sources just reconstructions of other allegedly primary sources?  These are the kinds of questions being asked by postmodernists. With regard to culture, the co-present may contain a wide variety of cultural artifacts.  Some of these exist within the realm of consciousness for experts and specialists as domains of knowledge, but how are they understood by others?  Outside of the cultural sciences are non-specialists really aware of cultural theory?  Can they articulate what constitutes culture?  Is culture defined by what they do?  Are nonverbal social scripts also a part of culture?  If culture is to have permanence, is has to be a part of the past?  The problem is whose version of the past?  Whose version of the co-present defines the past?  For many, the past is associated with new-originals. The co-present is where the past is ending and the future is beginning.  It is a place of transition.  It is world in flux.

 

CONSTRUCTING A SEDIMENTATION THEORY OF CULTURE

There are several viable concepts that come together to constitute a model of cultural change.  One of them is the concept of re-presentation that Foucault (1966) introduced in The Order of Things.  He noted that the Middle Ages went through a time when the old idea of imitating nature was replaced by one in which the events of the present were re-presented and this meant that they were cast in a different code and possessed different social and cultural values.  The way in which people think changed during this period of time. Instead of seeing are as copies of an original, the originals were re-presented and made into new entities. In this sedimentation theory, these new entities are called the new-originals. These developments occur within the co-present in the framework of a “contextualized emergence” in which some elements of the past are retained while others are modified or replaced with newer concepts. In terms of Foucault’s sedimentation model of time, the layer of the present is placed onto the previous layer of the past. Hence, the present is embedded into the past. Those aspects of the past that undergo change come to represent the newest layer of sedimentation, the new-present or the makings of the future.

The implications of this investigation is that language is used to re-present the social construction of reality and in doing so it redefines the past in terms of the relevancy of the present. As Kuhn (1964) noted in his model of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the past is rewritten to reflect the new paradigm.  This phenomenon is not limited to the natural sciences but is endemic in daily social interaction involving language.  The idea that scientific revolutions lead to new paradigms and new models of normal science is what Foucault (1969) sees as historical discontinuities.  These models of the emergence of new knowledge frameworks is the by product of a process that begins with the anomies discovered in normal science, the attempts to correct them during the period of crisis, and the successful implementation of a new scientific paradigm during the period of scientific revolution. This is how natural and social scientists argue for a model of change.  What they are revising and reconstructing is a system of thought, an old paradigm is replaced with a new one.

TOWARDS A THEORY OF CULTURAL CHANGE

Within the theory of the sedimentation of cultural time and space, it is agued that cultural consciousness plays an important role in the co-present, the place where the present is embedded in the past.  It is in the co-present where the new-past is establish and where traditions are redefined and given attributes that concur with its new contextual frame.  It can be argued that the meaning of the present comes from the past.  Old traditions provide road signs to the present. Old patterns of behavior provide social structures that legitimate the present.  These patterns may not be obvious to the individuals functioning within the co-present.  In such a case, the past becomes the new-past.  However, where individuals are conscious of these transformations, the past becomes the new-present.  They represent the newest layer of cultural space that is placed upon the co-present.  This new layer will eventually form the old past for future generations of people inhabiting that cultural space.

It is also in the co-present where the new-present is created.  This is because the future is embedded in the present.  It is the place where human projections are created and where hopes and desires are developed and contextualized.  Changes in the new-present are most obvious across generations within a social setting.  A clear case of this can be found in the generation gap that has occurred among baby boomers from 1946-1964.  Jones (1981), a demographer, studied this period in American culture and documented how the social construction of reality of the children of this generation differed substantially from those of their parents.  There were several factors that led to this difference.  It was during this time that people moved from the inner city to live in the suburbs.  The automobile became a dominant means of transportation, and television the dominant means of entertainment.  A plethora of new patterns of socialization led to the creation of a new mind set, a new cultural consciousness. The new-present of the children of this era differed significantly from the new-present of their parents. What the parents called the new-present, their children viewed the same phenomena as the new-originals.

MAKING THE PRESENT COHERENT THROUGH HABITUS

Living in the co-present means that one inhabits a world that is in a state of flux.  However, individuals who live in the co-present do not experience the sociology of everyday life as an unstructured and constantly changing world.  Why is that?  The answer can be found in the concept of Habitus (Bourdieu, 1977, 1984; Bourdieu and Wacquaint, 1992).  The structures that underlie everyday life are the routines, habits, beliefs, and patterns of behavior that one acquires by living within a cultural complex known as one’s social and cultural habitus.  Life is embedded in this habitus.  Without this habitus, life would undergo constant scrutiny.  One would ask some very basic questions about the daily routines in life.  What must one do when entering a restaurant?  How does one go about ordering a meal?  Life is full of these nonverbal social scripts.  They are learned by living and participating in a cultural complex.   Life makes sense because these routines provide daily activities and actions with a semblance of order.  When others share the same social scripts, the result is a sense of social order.  Primary and secondary socialization formed the training ground for the creation of this social order.  Television programs also provide information on what is available for purchase in the common market.  These programs also contain examples of social behavior in the form of soap operas, movies, and documentaries.  Much of what constitutes culture exists in the form of tacit knowledge.  It can be found in the cultural habitus of daily living.

THE MANNER OF TIME IN SPACE

In the linear model of time, not only is time used as a metaphor of space, but time is also modified.  There are different manners of time which linguists refer to as aspect-markers (St. Clair, 2002), 2006).

Linguistic Time	Concepts	Comments
Semantic time	The past, present, and the future	There are languages that use time words to define time, but they have no tense (linguistic markers of time)
Linguistic Tense	Many languages have grammatical markers of time.  These are called tense.	Tense is a linguistic marker of time.  These may occur as the present tense, the past tense, or the future tense.
Aspect Markers	Aspect has to do with how time is modified.  Time may occur as durations, cycles, iterations, inceptives, conclusives, etc.	A duration may begin in the past, endure, and end in the past. The marker for duration in English is have+Verb+en. I had eaten I have eaten I will have eaten I would have eaten

Not only do layers of space (cultural strata) encounter changes over time, but these changes in time continue from the past into the co-present and from the present into the future. In linguistics, this modification of the manner of time is called aspect. 

 

Aspect	Linguistic Markers	Commentary
Duration	Had V en, John had eaten Has V en, John has eaten Will have V en, John will  have eaten	An event begins in time, endures, and ends later in time.
Iteration	Was be V ing, John was eating Is be V ing, John is eating Will be V ing, John will be eating	An event repeats itself.  It begins at one point in time and repeats itself.  It concludes at a later point in time.
Inceptive	Start, John started to sing Begin, John began to sing	This marks the beginning of an event.
Terminative	Finish, John finished the book. End, John ended the project.	This marks the end of an event.

The transition from the past into the present may be part of duration or iteration. This means that the past continues into the co-present as a prior event.

 

RE-INVENTING THE CULTURAL PAST

Globalization is the new label that has replaced the concept of multiculturalism.  It has been chosen as a new term for several reasons.  In globalization the terra firma of a cultural space is overlaid with new earth.  The mores of other cultures and ways of life invade the cultural spaces of the past. The co-present is a mixture of not only new and old cultures, but also disparate cultures.  There is another reason why globalization has been a more significant concept in modern times and this has to do with large movements of human beings going across international boundaries to resettle in a new land.  The old concept of culture was defined by nation-states.  It is what is within the political entity of a nation-state constituted its cultural framework.  Once an individual leaves his country or nation-state, he enters into a new culture.  With globalization such a definition of multiculturalism no longer holds.  People are transported en masse in new cultures where they become hybrid citizens. In the old country, the present was embedded in the past.  In the new host country, however, the cultural past is different.  This means that their cultural identity has been compromised.  They want to be participants in the new culture and yet remain favorable to their cultural past.  This problem is resolved by transporting components of the cultural past and relocating it in the new home land.  Those who reside outside of this phenomenon has labeled such communities as a ghetto, a little Tokyo, a barrio, or a China towns.  The reality is that has more to do with the making of a hybrid culture.  It constitutes a new cultural space.  Within the Foucault model of the archeology of knowledge, earth from the old country is brought into the new country and mixed with its new cultural space.
            For those who are being bombarded with modernization in the form of new forms of architecture, new products, new languages, and new ways of thinking, the opposite is true.  Their culture past is allow new forms of earth to be placed on it terra firma.  It also constitutes a hybrid culture but of a different kind.

EMERGENT-REALITIES AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURE

One aspect of socialization that has not been fully addressed so far comes from the uses of mass media.  This use of media comes in many forms and is directed to cultural niches.  What one sees on television becomes a part of the conscious co-present.  Those who share the same media use it as a way of reaffirming their social construction of reality.  The soap operas, movies, and situation comedies that they watch are comparable to other forms of socialization except that the participation is passive and the messages may are tacit.  Years after a certain event took place on television, individuals may invoke them in conversations and role playing.  These invents are part of their virtual memory and form a part of their virtual culture.  They function, in part, as a collective memory that has been distributed individually to individuals and these persons invoke the same memory at the same time in a public setting.  They have become the new-originals. One can ascertain after a short conversation, for example, if another person subscribes to cable and what programs he or she watches on television.  These forms of virtual memory become social markers of group coherence with regard to one event.  It is as if there are niche cultures that can be invoked and used to unite disparate individuals by means of one event.

Sociologists do not want to deal with the concept of collective memory.  They find it too mystical.  This concept, it should be noted, was introduced by Durkheim (1951), one of the founders of sociology.  Durkheim (1964, 1970) argued that individuals are bound together in society in two ways.  They share their lives with others in a communal setting or they are bound together by institutions, laws, and regulations.  Those who see life as a community share the same religion, the same hope, fears, and aspirations.  Those who are bound by rules and regulations belong to a group but they do not feel bonded to the group.  With the advent of television and the creation of the consumer culture, the kinds of bonding that occur in mass society has many of the elements associated with the primal communities that Durkheim discussed.  Virtual cultures share virtual memories. They are bonded by virtual events.  They have the same kind of deep emotional connection over events that earlier societal types encounter.  If there ever was a time when a case could be made for the existence of fragments of a virtual memory distributed over a wide range of niche cultures, it is in the co-present world of television, the internet, blogospheres, and other forms of mediated communication.

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The concept of culture as a unit of knowledge shared by all individuals within a nation-state can no longer be maintained.  Just as economic groups transcend national borders in order to do business, mass media transcends these same borders in order to market goods.  What was once a simple matter of defining the mores of a tribal unit or a nation-state has emerged into a calculus of cultural artifacts that play a role in the co-present worlds of numerous consumer societies.  How does one begin to explain this new form of cultural diffusion?  How does one begin to define the forces behind these infusions of cultural symbols (1995)?  How does one deal with the spectacle of life (Debord, 1995; Baudrillard, 1973)?

It was argued earlier in this investigation that Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions provides a basis for the discussion of change within the cultural fabric of a society.  Emphasis was placed on the period of crises where the social construction of reality is questioned and new potential paradigms emerge.  It was argued that this locale is not the present but the co-present, the place where the past and the present encounter each other.  It is where the present is embedded in the habitus of the past. It is also where the future is being created by means of new levels of consciousness raising and new re-presentations of the artifacts of the past.  It is here that the rationale for change takes place. It is from this context that cultural changes emerge. Some of these function as new-originals. Others just remain as the new-present.   

What this new framework for the study of culture proposes is that culture is a steady-state phenomenon that represents linear moments of frozen time in a dynamic realm of change. If modernity had to do with steady-state phenomena of the past and postmodernism has to do with the state of flux between steady-states, the question that needs to be asked is what comes after postmodernism.  It will be another stable system surrounded by a flux of forces that contain the seeds of cultural change in the future. What is needed is a complexity theory of culture.  It is under these circumstances that the nature of cultural change can be better examined, articulated, and defined. 

REFERENCES

Baudrillard, Jean. 1995.   Simulacra and Simulation.  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Baudrillard, Jean.  1973.  The Mirror of Production.  St. Louis: Telos Press.

Becker, Howard.   1973.  The Outsiders: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance.  NY: The Free Press.

Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas.  1966.  The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the

Sociology of Knowledge..  Garden City: Doubleday.

Bourdieu, Pierre  1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre.  1984.  The Logic of Practice.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre.  1986.  The Forms of Capital.  In J. G. Richardson (Editor, Handbook for Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education.  NY: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre.  1991.  Language and Symbolic Power.  Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant.  1992.  An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press..

Brown, Richard Harvey. 1987.  Society as Text: Essays on Rhetoric, Reason, and Reality.  Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Brown, Richard Harvey. 1977.  A Poetics for Sociology: Towards a Logic of Discovery for the Human Sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Boas, Franz.  1928.  Race, Language and Culture.  NY: Macmillan.

Chomsky, Noam A.1957.  Syntactic Structures.  The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton and Co., 1957

Chomsky, Noam.  1966.  Cartesian Linguistics.  NY: Harper and Row.  

Cooke, Harold P. (Ed.). 1967.  The Categories.  Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Cornford, Francis M. 1957.  Plato's Theory of Knowledge.  Indianapolis, Indiana: The Library of Liberal Arts, The Bobbs-Merrill Company

Cornford, Francis M.1945. The Republic of Plato.  Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Cornford, Francis M. 1952.  Principium Sapientiae: The Origins of Greek Philosophical Thought.  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cornford, Francis M.  1937.Plato's Cosmology.  Indianapolis, Indiana: The Library of Liberal Arts, The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

Cornford, Francis M. 1940.  Plato and Parmenides  Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merril Company Inc., The Library of Liberal Arts.

Coser, Lewis A.  2002.  The Functions of Social Conflict.  NY: Basic Books.

Debord, Guy. 1995.  The Society of the Spectacle.  Cambridge, MA: Zone Books.

Derrida, Jacques. 1976.  Of Grammatology, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Douglas, Jack; et alia. 1985.  Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday Life.  NY:  Academic Press.

Durkheim, Emile.  1951.  The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.  NY: The Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. 1964. The Division of Labor in Society.  NY: The Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. 1970.  The Rules of Sociological Method.  London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Fish, Stanley E. (1972).  Self-Consuming Artifacts:  The Experience of Seventeenth-Century Literature.  Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Forster, E.S. (Ed.).1960.Topica  London, England: William Heinemann Ltd...

Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses.  [English translation: The Order of Things]. Paris, France: Editions Gallimard.

Foucault, Michel.1969.  L'Archéologie du Savoir  Paris, France: Editions Gallimard.

Foucault, Michel.  1971.  L'Ordre du Discours.  Paris, France: Editions Gallimard. 

Foucault, Michel.  1982.  Ceci n’est pas une pipe.  Parid, France: Editions Gallimard    

Giddens, Anthony 1979. Central problems in Social Theory : Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London : Macmillan.

Giddens, Anthony 1984. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge : Polity Press.

Giddens, Anthony 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. NY: Anchor,     Doubleday and Company.

Goffman, Erving. 1959.  Asylum: Essays on the Social Situations of Mental Patients and Other InmatesGarden City, New York: Doubleday. 

Goffman, Erving.  1961.  Encounters.  Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril.   

Goffman, Erving.  1963.  Stigma.  Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 

Goffman, Erving.  1967.  Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.  New York: Anchor Doubleday.  . 

Goffman, Erving.  1971a. Strategic Interaction.  Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Goffman, Erving. 1971b.  Relations in Public.  New York: Colophon. 

Goffman, Erving.  1974. Frame Analysis.  New York: Harper Colophon Books.

Hagstrom, Warren O.  1965.  The Scientific Community.  NY: Basic Books.

Hanson, Norwood Russell.  1958. Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, Landon Y. 1981. Great expectations: America and the baby boom generation. New York: Ballantine.

Jourard, Sidney M.  1971. The Transparent Self.  New York: D. Van Nostrand Company.  

Karier, Clarence J., Spring, Joel H., and Paul C. Violas.  1973.  Roots of Crisis:American   Education in the Twentieth Century: American Education in the Twentieth Century.  NY: Rand McNally.  

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1964. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S.  1971. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lee, H, D, P.  (Translator and Commentator) 1953. The Republic.  Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books Inc..

Lehmann, Winfred P.  1962.  Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. NY: Holt.

Lippman, Andy and Alex Pentland.  2004.  Organic Networks.  BT Technological Journal, 22. 4, 9-12

Lippman, Andy. and David P. Reed.  2003.  Viral Communications. http://dl.media.mit.edu/viral/

Lloyd, G.E. R. 1990.  Demystifying Mentalities.  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, Themes in Social Sciences Series.

Luft, J. and Ingham, H. 1955. "The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness", Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles: UCLA

Marx, Karl.  1979 [1859] A Contribution of the Critique of Political Economy.  New York: International Publishers.

Marx, Karl.  1973 [1957] Grudrisse: Foundation of the Critique of Poligical Economy.  NY: Vintage.

Marx, Karl and Friederich Engels.  1965 [1846].  The German Ideology.  In E. Hobsbawm, (Editor), Precapitalist Econmic Formations: Karl Marx.  NY: International Publishers. Pages. 121-139.

Mehan, Hugh and Houston Wood. 1975. The Reality of Ethno-methodology.  New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

Miller, Donna R. and David C. Bruenger.  2006.  Virality: A Postmodern Cultural Pandemic.   http://music.utsa.edu:16080/musmkt/Virality_Postmodern_Pandemic_Miller_Bruenger.pdf

Miller, Donna R. and David C. Bruenger.  2005.  Beyond Cultural Globalization:  A Postmodern Interpretation of Decivilization. 
http://music.utsa.edu:16080/musmkt/Beyond_Cultural_Globalization_Miller_Bruenger.pdf

Miller, G.A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K.H. 1960. Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston

Minsky, Marvin.  1988.  The Society of Mind. NY: Simon & Schuster.

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. 2004. Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. NY: Roman& Littlefield.

Prigogine, Ilya.  1983.  From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences.  San

Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, Ilya and I. Stengers.  1997.  The End of Certainty, Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature.  NY: The Free Press.

Prigogine, Ilya an I. Stengers.  1983.  Order out of Chaos.  NY: Bantom Books.

Rorty, Richard. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de.  1916.  Cours de linguistique générale  Paris: Payot.

St. Clair, Robert N.  2006. The Sociology of Knowledge as a Model for Language Theory: Language as a Social Science. NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

St. Clair, Robert N.  2002.  The Major Metaphors of European Thought – Growth, Game, Language, Drama, Machine, Time and Space.  NY: Edwin Mellen Press.  

St. Clair, Robert N., Thomé-Williams, Ana Clotilde and Lichang Su. 2005.  The role of social script theory in cognitive blending  In Manuel F. Medina and Lisa Wagner (editors), Special Issue of ICS XIV.

Szasz, Thomas S. 1966. The Myth of Mental Illness.  New York: Anchor Doubleday.

Toffler, Alvin.  1970.  Future Shock.  NY: Bantam Books.

Toffler, Alvin.  1980.  The Third Wave.  NY: Bantam Books.

Tredennick, Hugh.  (Editor). 1967.  Prior Analytics.  London, England: William Heinemann Ltd..

Tredennick, Hugh.  (Editor). 1960.  Posterior Analytics  London, England: William Heinemann Ltd.

Turner, Victor. 1969.  The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Turner, Victor.  1972.  Dramas, Fields and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press.

Turner, Victor.  1968.  The Anthropology of Performance.  NY: PAJ Publications.

Turner, Victor. 1982. From ritual to theater: The human seriousness of play. New York: PAJ Publications.

Walllerstein, Immanuel.  1974.  The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and
the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century.  NY: Academic Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel.  1980.  The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the
Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750.  NY: Academic Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel.  1989.  The Modern World-System III: The Second Era of Great
Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1849s.  NY: Academic Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel.  2005.  World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Van Gennep, Arnold.  1960. The Rites of Passage.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky, L. S.  1962 [1934].  Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978.  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.