Issue 196, October 2026
Special Section: Canon, Critique and Cultural Sociology
Reading Jeffrey C. Alexander, Part I: The case for canonization
Celso M. Villegas and Galen Watts
For nearly half a century Jeffrey C. Alexander has devoted himself to the sociological vocation − first as a general (‘grand’) theorist, and then as the iconic leader of a set of global research programmes − a life lived for sociology. In ‘Part 1’ of this two-part article, we make the case for Alexander’s canonization as a classical theorist. We do so by reconstructing and periodizing his life and intellectual development, narrating his transformation from Jeff to ‘Jeffrey C. Alexander.’ We do this at the level of what Parsons’s termed personality: that is, we situate Alexander’s oeuvre in the quality of his person, his wants and needs, his frustrations and anxieties, and the development of the self.
Reading Jeffrey C. Alexander, Part II: The theoretical core (and its tensions)
Celso M. Villegas and Galen Watts
In ‘Part II’ of this two-part article, we provide a general schematic with which to introduce the Alexanderian vision of sociology. This vision comprises the following five commitments: (a) a commitment to structural voluntarism and the moral dimension of human action; (b) a commitment to multidimensionality; (c) a commitment to the centrality of meaning in social life, and thus to culture’s autonomy; (d) a commitment to a postpositivist conception of social science; and (e) a commitment to democracy as a utopian ideal. In addition to elaborating this vision, we also explore its theoretical tensions and strains, and the way these serve as a fecund source of generative thought and theoretical development − giving rise to new problems, as well as new attempts at resolution.
Saint Jeff
What is the basis of canonization for social theorists? An accounting of the career of the prominent American sociologist Jeffrey Alexander points to the basis of this reputational claim and its limitations. Alexander is one of the most widely respected theorists of the past half-century but viewing his broad interests in politics and civil society and his promotion of the Strong Program in cultural sociology provides a justification for his widely-acclaimed importance and the basis for the paired articles to which this squib is a response
The politics and promise of Alexanderian neoclassical sociology
The article expands upon Villegas and Watts’ call for Jeffrey C. Alexander’s work to be recognised as part of a renewed sociological canon by exploring the contemporary political complexity of establishing a neoclassical paradigm generally and the inclusion of Alexander specifically. Drawing on the sociology of intellectual movements, it is argued that elevating the status of Alexander would afford the discipline an important way to come to terms with recent shifts in democracy, nationalism and global power.
Cultural sociology and the ‘black box’ of meaning: Responding to Villegas and Watts’s ‘Reading Jeffrey C. Alexander’
In this article, I respond to the overview and exegesis of Alexander’s sociology provided by Villegas and Watts. I explore their case for the theorist’s ‘canonization’ and outline what they see as the major ‘commitments’ of his social theory. As someone who self-defines as a cultural sociologist, I am particularly interested in what the authors term the ‘multidimensionality’ and ‘postpositivism’ of Alexander’s thought. However, I also note Villegas and Watts identify a possible shortcoming: namely, whether Alexander’s cultural sociology pays sufficient attention to the materiality of social life. What I call ‘Cultural Sociology 2.0’ has linked meaning to materiality more explicitly; and rather than positing culture as an ‘independent’ or ‘dependent’ variable has gravitated towards nonlinear models of culture. I conclude by asking whether cultural sociology is a style of analysis; and suggest both preserving the ‘black boxes’ of meaning and being attentive to things at the ‘edges’ of comprehension.
From Alexander the Great to Alexander’s Greatness, and back again: An ancient/modern jeu d’esprit of intellectual appreciation
No contemporary social-theoretical thinker has been more attuned to matters of verbal representation, literary genres, and the dramatic force of words and imagery than Jeffrey C. Alexander. Taking its lead from Villegas and Watts’ appreciation of him, this paper offers a jeu d’esprit of intellectual appreciation that traverses the ancient and modern worlds. It considers various literary genres and tropes involved in the creation of appreciative biographical writing. Riffing on terms such as Alexanderian, Alexandrian, Alexandrine and Alexanderesque, it relates Jeffrey C. Alexander, as biographical persona, to his antique namesake, Alexander the Great. The Greatness of the modern person(a) is brought into high relief through comparison with his ancient counterpart. The paper follows in the parallel footsteps of Alexander the ancient and Alexander the modern, seeking to exhibit some of their own respective forms of audacity in daring to make such a comparison.
Criticizing ‘the canon:’ A challenge for cultural sociology
What makes a body of work ‘canonical’? In his writings over the years Jeffrey C. Alexander offers some phenomenologically convincing answers, each suggesting that the power of canonical texts is simultaneously context-immanent and context-transcending. However, a critical theory of ‘the canon’ cannot confine itself to phenomenological description. A critical theory is necessary due to the social constitution of the meanings of canonical texts. This gives rise to an endemic risk of ideological biases and the danger that canonization will reproduce and reinforce dominant perceptions of intellectual value, excluding or marginalizing authors and works who do not fit well with these perceptions. Accordingly, theories cognizant of this risk must explain the context-transcending component of the normativity of canonical works in a non-reductive way. This is a challenge for critical sociology.
Trespassing into economic life: Alexander and Zelizer, Alexander and me
Jeffrey Alexander presented culture as acting autonomously in shaping outcomes in the civil sphere, by way of narratives, symbolic binaries and social performances. Using Viviana Zelizer and her academic progeny as his touchstone, Alexander analysed from above how cultural structure shaped economic action and the workings of markets, entering the territory of economic sociology and of economics where the dynamics of dramaturgical performances remained limited to Erving Goffman, religious-like performances to Randall Collins. With Zelizer, he was aligned, though his analysis worked from the top down, while her relational work discerned the cultural structure from the bottom up. For the economists and for traditional economic sociologists, culture had trespassed into territory they controlled. This article reviews how cultural sociology boldly entered the marketplace.
A journey into cultural sociology
This article reflects on my intellectual journey into cultural sociology and the work of Jeffrey C. Alexander. Beginning with an ethnographic study of theatre for young audiences, I describe how encounters with the Strong Program in Cultural Sociology opened new analytical possibilities for understanding how meaning emerges in the stage−audience encounter. From this point, the value of an ethnographic perspective on civil sphere theory, which I call civil sphere ethnography, helps to bring the civil sphere into view within everyday situations, interactions and emotional dynamics. The article provides an example of how processes of civil repair can occur in a local educational setting within contemporary Swedish society, characterized by increasing diversity and segregation. By connecting Alexander with Paulo Freire, I outline a pedagogical approach I call the critical pedagogy of multicultural incorporation, highlighting its potential to foster recognition, reduce shame, enhance a sense of belonging and, hopefully, broaden civil inclusion.
Tensions and insights: More on ‘Reading Jeffrey C. Alexander’
Lyn Spillman
This comment on Villegas and Watt’s reflective overview of Jeffrey Alexander’s scholarly contributions, addresses canonization, the value of sociological tensions and neglected empirical components of his work.
Articles
The dramaturgy of incivility: Political incorrectness and its threat to democratic life
This article examines the transformation of the dramaturgical principles that structure political behaviour in contemporary democracies. It distinguishes between two models of self-presentation: the authenticity model, which privileges self-expression, emotional proximity and the blurring of public and private boundaries − a model consolidated through the rise of television as a dominant medium, and the model of political incorrectness, which emerges in the twenty-first century and radically reconfigures the previous dramaturgical order by enabling incivility, verbal aggression and disregard for democratic norms. This displacement undermines the institutional, moral and epistemic mediations that sustain liberal democratic life. The consolidation of this model is closely linked to the expansion of social media.
Paths to nowhere: An interview with Raymond Geuss about Tracks in Chaos
Howard Prosser
This interview with the philosopher Raymond Geuss, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, explores the questions animating his 2026 book Tracks in Chaos: Philosophical Orientation and Political Reflection (Polity). The book’s title invokes Heidegger’s image of the Holzweg – forest tracks cut through labour that often lead nowhere – which Geuss develops into a figure for philosophy as a historically situated, constrained, and dependent activity rather than an autonomous system. Drawing on his formation in Heidegger, Marx, and Adorno, he defends a suspicion of ordinary language and everyday concepts, proposing a ‘binary vision’ for operating within social practices while seeing through them. He distinguishes three senses of authority, none of which philosophy can claim, and separates ‘moralising’ from moral judgement proper. The interview closes with his diagnosis of a disintegrating West, marked by concentrated wealth and power, financialisation, technological deskilling, and a pervasive loss of orientation.
Review Essay
The ‘posthumous Bauman:’ a review essay
Matt Dawson
