The Stakes of Symbolic Boundaries

Shifting categories, changing attitudes: A boundary work approach in the study of attitudes toward migrants

“…The most common micro-level studies are national and international surveys that offer a long-term perspective (e.g., European Social Survey [ESS], European Values Study, Eurobarometer) and enable us to capture trends and compare different groups in society. Survey research on micro-level boundary work either focuses solely on the perception of migrants (e.g., Neumann & Moy, 2018) or it includes migrants among other social groups in the exploration of boundary-making patterns (Edgell & Tranby, 2010;Edgell et al, 2020). Following Bail's (2008) work on symbolic boundaries and immigration that we discuss in detail below, Neumann and Moy (2018) use data from the ESS (2014-2015) to explore the symbolic boundaries Europeans draw around immigrants and how these affect their willingness to admit specific immigrant groups into their countries.…”

“…Moreover, surveys can be also used to identify broader cultural patterns of boundary work. Using data from the “American Mosaic” survey (2003 and 2014), Edgell and her colleagues identify three stable and distinct boundary‐making styles in US society representing three different visions of “America”: (1) “optimistic pluralists,” (2) “critics of multiculturalism,” and (3) “cultural preservationists” (Edgell & Tranby, 2010; Edgell et al., 2020). These “cultural packages” are moreover closely associated with attitudes toward policies mitigating social and political inequalities, providing evidence that supports the link between symbolic and social boundaries (Edgell et al., 2020).…”

America’s Most Divided Sport: Polarization and Inequality in Attitudes about Youth Football

“…Whether it's guns or avocado toast, Americans' cultural tastes divide along partisan lines (Whitehead, Schnabel, and Perry 2018;Shi et al 2017;Friedland et al 2007). Cultural sociologists have long noted that cultural preferences act as markers with which group members draw symbolic boundaries (Lamont and Molnár 2002;Bourdieu 1984;Edgell et al 2019). These symbolic boundaries, or "package[s]…[of] shared cultural affiliations and identities" (Edgell et al 2019:311), allow for both in-group identity formation and symbolic exclusion of out-group members (Bryson 1996;Lizardo 2006;Lizardo and Skiles 2016).…”

“…In places like western Pennsylvania where the Orsinis live, football occupies a central position in culture and in the socialization of boys. Football is deeply connected to the American patriotic "civil religion" (Butterworth 2008;Bellah 1967) and it acts as a "symbolic boundary" distinguishing those who are group members from those who are not (Lamont and Molnár 2002;Bourdieu 1984;Edgell, Stewart, Billups, and Larson 2019). People who would encourage children to play football see it not as a child safety debate, but instead experience tackle football as intertwined with their vision of America.…”

Children’s perception of social boundaries: The intersectionality of age and social group affiliation in rural Pakistan

“…Social grouping such as that based on gender, age, occupation, class and ethnicity underpins social boundaries (cf. Edgell, Stewart, Billups, & Larson, 2020; Fernandez‐Gimenez, 2002; Qian & Lichter, 2007). Social boundaries are thus ‘objectified forms of social differences’ to mark a differential access to resources, opportunities and social relationships (Lamont & Molnár, 2002, p. 168).…”