9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 519 21 New Sociology of Knowledge: Historical Legacy and Contributions to Current Debates in Institutional Research Renate E. Meyer INTRODUCTION sociology of knowledge has become one of the classics in sociological thinking. In When laying the foundations for neoinstitu- neoinstitutional theory, it is still among the tional theory in 1977, both of the subsequent most frequently quoted references and gener- classic articles (Meyer/Rowan 1977; Zucker ally assumed to be one of the approach’s 1977) pointed to Peter L. Berger and Thomas main theoretical pillars. As with many Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality, classics, however, the current citation is often first published in 1966, as a central theoreti- made in passing and is more frequently a cal foundation and inspiration for their tribute paid to their overall contribution to research program. In the equally influential the field than as guidance in concrete theoret- ‘orange book,’ DiMaggio and Powell (1991) ical, conceptual or methodological questions. underline that Berger and Luckmann’s Four decades after its first publication, the phenomenological approach, together with actual impact of the sociology of knowledge Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology seems to be lagging behind its omnipresence (another American scholar strongly influ- in the bibliographies of institutional enced by Alfred Schütz; see also Psathas analyses. 2004), provides ‘the new institutionalism The Social Construction of Reality was with a microsociology of considerable originally published in the United States, but power.’ Berger and Luckmann’s biographical back- Today, beyond doubt, Berger and grounds1 and their ambition to reconcile Max Luckmann’s ‘new’ or social constructionist Weber’s verstehende sociology, Schütz’ 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 520 520 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM phenomenological analysis of the Lebenswelt otherwise heterogeneous research agenda of and American pragmatism give their socio- the German sociology of knowledge. In addi- phenomenologically oriented approach pro- tion, organizational institutionalism’s often found academic roots on both sides of the quantitative research questions and designs are Atlantic and make it, as Dirk Tänzler puts it, not easily compatible with a hermeneutic the ‘heiress and sister of philosophy.’ Despite approach. And last but not least, the language their prominent position among sociological divide – the German-speaking branches of the classics, Berger and Luckmann have not sociology of knowledge are unfortunately given rise to a specific school of thinking nor available mostly in only the German language – has it been their intention to do so. Apart from prevents the proponents of both approaches neoinstitutional theory, which was elaborated from entering into a proper dialogue. mainly in Northern America, in German-speak- In this chapter, I hope to make a contribution ing interpretive sociology, a particular field of to such a dialogue by bringing together the lit- study has developed in this tradition especially erature from both currently disparate streams. after Luckmann’s return. Similar to organiza- The theoretical inspiration that the sociology tional institutionalism, this field is more a of knowledge has provided is still alive in research community that shares basic assump- many of organizational institutionalism’s basic tions and research interests than a formulated assumptions and core concepts that have incor- and coherent theory: Luckmann and several porated much more of the socio-phenomeno- other researchers (e.g. Luckmann 2002 or logical legacy than might be apparent at first 2006a; Knoblauch 1995; Knoblauch/ sight. The most prominent example is, of Luckmann 2004; Keller 2005a) have devoted a course, the overall focus on knowledge and, considerable part of their oeuvre to analyzing thus, on the cognitive dimensions of institu- the role of language and communication in the tions that has become one of the ‘trademarks’ construction of reality, a ‘turn’ evidenced by the of neoinstitutional theory, in comparison to labelling communicative or discursive con- other more normative or regulative strands of struction of reality. The incorporation of institutional thinking (see Scott 2001). Equally hermeneutics into the sociology of knowledge important are the understanding of what insti- (the hermeneutic sociology of knowledge or tutions are and how they operate, the relevance social scientific hermeneutics as it was previ- of legitimacy, the conceptualization of the ously called) is primarily tied to the work of process of institutionalization, or the role of Hans-Georg Soeffner (e.g. 1989, 2004), but has language and symbolism that owe much to this been taken up by several other scholars in the heritage. In the following sections, I will revive field (e.g. Schröer 1994; Hitzler/Honer 1997; attention to these roots. However, I am not Hitzler/Reichertz/Schröer 1999). tracing solely the historic legacy and impact, Although they have common roots, organi- but argue that by rediscovering and renewing zational institutionalism and the German the tie with the phenomenological sociology of branches of the new sociology of knowledge knowledge, institutional theory could gain pay very little attention to each other, aside much inspiration for theoretical and method- from cursory cross-references (e.g. Keller ological challenges that have dominated the 2005a; Tänzler, Knoblauch, and Soeffner debate in the last decade and for new directions 2006a). While recent institutional research is in institutional research. exploring its common ground with a number of different theoretical approaches (e.g. Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory, Pierre MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field, or CONCEPTUALIZATION OF INSTITUTIONS Michel Foucault’s discourse theory), the con- cern for organizations and organization theory Many critics of the ‘standard version’ of has been of only minor importance in the organizational institutionalism, especially 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 521 NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 521 from Scandinavian institutionalism (e.g. Especially with regard to the interactive con- Czarniawska/Joerges 1996; Sahlin-Andersson struction of social meaning and knowledge 1996; Brunsson 1998) or from other interpre- (as opposed to the subjective constitution) tively inspired branches of institutional and the socialization of individuals, Schütz, thinking (e.g. Zilber 2002, 2006; Meyer at that time already living in the U.S., 2003) have claimed that institutional theory explicitly drew on the work of American devotes too much effort to analyzing the tra- pragmatists, mainly of George Herbert jectories of macro-diffusion patterns while Mead, Charles H. Cooley, William James, underestimating the meaning the spreading and William I. Thomas. practices have in the originating as well as Schütz elaborated that individuals work adopting context and the modifications – with typifications of actions, situations and translations – they undergo in the course of persons that are generated in interaction and their ‘travels.’ Several of the Scandinavian communication. They identify typical actors scholars, for instance Czarniawska and and identities, recognize typical actions and Joerges (1996) or Forssell and Jansson assign typical meanings. To interpret and (1996), explicitly draw attention to the work understand the situation they face, individu- of Schütz, in particular to his notions of typ- als need to draw on the recipe knowledge that ifications contained in the social stocks of is provided by their Lebenswelten. knowledge. This ‘social stock of knowledge’ that the One of the central assumptions derived members of a society share to different from the Schützian legacy is that action is degrees is built up (‘sedimented’) from the meaningful and that meaning is constituted experiences of the generations before them through rules that are sprecific to the social (Schütz/Luckmann 1973). Individuals are field. To recall, Schütz’s objective was to born into a ‘socio-historical a priori’, as give Weber’s interpretive sociology, which Luckmann (e.g. 1983; see also Soeffner identifies the goal of sociology in the under- 1989) calls it, that makes available these standing of action from the subjective mean- institutionalized typifications, frames of ing of the actor, a phenomenological interpretation, actor positions, patterns of grounding (see especially Schütz 1967). In action, etc., and thus delineates the bound- his appreciative, yet critical interpretation of aries and the ‘horizon’ within which people Weber’s work, Schütz highlighted that Weber can meaningfully act – and beyond which it had failed to specify the concept of meaning. is impossible to see or understand: All inter- In particular, he asked how meaning is con- ests and preferences, all rationalities, choices stituted by an actor and pointed to the con- and decisions ever imaginable lie within cept’s inherent temporality. He emphasized these borders; all innovations, crises, shocks the difference between the meaning assigned or whatever ‘triggers’ of change we assume by the actors themselves and the meaning have to be interpreted within this horizon to assigned by an observer, and raised the ques- be taken into consideration and have impact. tion how understanding is at all possible Building on this hermeneutic and phenome- given the categorical non-accessibility of nological heritage