The Scope of Visual Sociology

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 9 February 2011Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713689928

The Scope of Visual SociologyJohn Gradyab

a President of the IVSA, b Professor of Sociology, Wheaton College in Massachusetts,

To cite this Article Grady, John(1996) 'The Scope of Visual Sociology', Visual Studies, 11: 2, 10 — 24To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14725869608583762URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725869608583762

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713689928

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725869608583762

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

10 Visual Sociology, 11 (2), pp. 10-24, © International Visual Sociology Association, 1996

The Scope of Visual Sociology

John Grady

Currently, visual sociology is defined as a sub-field of qualitative sociology. This paper ar-gues that such a view is too narrow and thatthe field is actually composed of three dis-tinct, yet logically related, areas of investiga-tion. The first is Seeing, or the study of roleof sight and vision in the construction of so-cial organization and meaning. The second isIconic Communication, or the study of howspontaneous and deliberate construction ofimages and imagery communicate informa-tion and can be used to manage relation-ships in society. The third area I have termedDoing Sociology Visually and is concernedwith how techniques of producing and de-coding images can be used to empiricallyinvestigate social organization, cultural mean-ing and psychological processes. It includesthose techniques, methodologies and con-cerns that have received the most attentionto date and where the camera and other tech-nologies of representation have played a cru-cial role in the analytic process.

Visual sociology is most often defined as theuse of photography in social scientific

research. That's how it all began and it is whatmany contemporary visual sociologists do. Butever since it began, visual sociology has in-volved a lot more than just exploiting a specifictechnology and its applications for creating newtypes of data.

In the first place, the photographic image isa particularly rich source of information thatyields much more than mere data. Photographsdo contain information that can be identified andmeasured in many different ways; but they arealso repositories of meaning that are as puzzlingas they are fascinating. In this they are likegravitational fields whose emotional density isprovided by the stories they tell. But the sourceof these meanings is often indeterminate. Is itcaptured from those pictured? Is it imposed by

the photographer? Or is it drawn from the vieweras though by a magnet? What photographsreveal as they are contemplated — and allvisual sociologists soon realize that this is a typeof information that has to be looked at again,and again, and yet again — is as haunting andseductive as it is hard to measure. Joy andsorrow, isolation and attachment, dignity anddissolution, engagement and alienation and thegamut in between and beyond all leave traceson a print that may be readily evident to somebut not to others. How much, if any, of thisinformation is useful for social science? Or doesthe problem lie with the social sciences? Mustthey change so as not to be closed off fromthose rich worlds of experience that inhabit thephotograph?

Secondly, the last half century has wit-nessed an explosion in technology that hascreated new modes of representing informationas well as entirely new media for communicat-ing research findings. Visual sociologists cannow complement and supplement their work instill photography with video, three dimensionalcomputer displays of statistical data, andsoftware programs that permit the simultaneousanalysis of quantitative information, qualitativeaccounts, and visual imagery, to mention just afew possibilities. Taken independently, each ofthese emerging media merely constitutes a newencounter with the methodological issues thatthe use of photography in research has madeunavoidable. I believe, however, that when theyare taken together, something much more isrequired: a dramatically new approach to a"more visual sociology" that encompasses allthe various ways that seeing and that which canbe seen affects our lives.1

In recent years, visual sociologists havemade significant progress making sense of theirfield. Thus, much of what I will say in this essayis derivative and will rely on what has been

John Grady is President of the IVSA and Professor of Sociology at Wheaton College in Massachusetts. He has producednumerous documentary films, including Mission Hill and the Miracle of Boston (1979) and Just a Fight: The Placeof Violence in Men's Lives (1995).

Downloaded At: 04:33 9 February 2011

The Scope of Visual Sociology 11

established by this literature. Nevertheless, Ibelieve that continued progress is hampered bythe ways that contemporary visual sociologistscome to terms with their identity as a field.Generally, visual sociology is defined as aparticularly innovative branch of the study andpractice of sociological methods and is con-cerned with the following issues: Is the camera alegitimate research tool? If so, does it haveenough applications to interest social scientists?Do visual methods provide measurable behav-ioral data? Is this data more, or less, subjectivethan that found in most surveys? Do visualmethods include the interpretation of all prod-ucts of visual communication, or must the visualsociologist use only photographs taken bysocial scientists? Should visual as well as allother sociologists, as some suggest, radicallycriticize scientific method as a way of protectingthe humanity of our subjects (Chaplin, 1994;Guba and Lincoln, 1994)?

These are all legitimate questions, but theyfix our attention on the past, not the present; onmastering one technology rather than managinga technological environment; on articulatingwhat we ought to do rather than examining whatwe are accomplishing in what we practice. Wehave been distracted by excessive concern withour status in the discipline and the world ofletters and have neglected examining what isgoing on in our shops. By so misplacing ourattention we unintentionally exaggerate divisionswithin the field rather than highlight what allthose who seek to integrate social analysis withvisual materials have in common.

My argument can be summarized asfollows:

Visual sociologists share a set of workingassumptions about their basic data source —the image — that, however tacit it may be, isnot shaken by any of the theoretical ormethodological divisions that currentlyframe discourse in the field;

Visual sociology is a more encompassingfield than most definitions allow;

The work of visual sociologists is uneven. Itexhibits the most vitality in its methodologi-cal contributions, while its substantive workis less developed and its relationship totheory is almost completely derivative;

There is a massive amount of work thatneeds to be done on all fronts and at alllevels of visual sociology. Most importantly,the contribution of the field to the study ofsocial organization will not be realized untilthe role of visual imagery in all aspects ofcommunication is more fully explored andcodified. In addition, a more robust andadequate theory of visual perception andcognition must be developed as a way ofexistentially grounding the field;

Finally, while the long term significance of amore visual sociology will depend upon thedevelopments outlined above, I believe thatit could easily come to constitute a thirdgreat tradition of empirical sociology,complementing survey research and fieldwork.

Defining Visual Sociology

In general most definitions of visual sociologycontain two elements: a reference to the cameraand its uses; and, a discussion of the analyticpurpose of the user. John Collier's masterfulVisual Anthropology, first published in 1967,and revised and expanded (with his son,Malcolm) in 1986, is subtitled "Photography asa Research Method" and is-essentially aninventory of techniques and guidelines for usingphotography and film (or video) in carrying outa community study, or some portion of it.Because most sociological work entails studyingcommunities, or social worlds of one kind oranother, Visual Anthropology remains a tem-plate for all subsequent work. The book is wheremany of the methodological innovations ofvisual social science first appeared. Because ofits clarity of expression and rich wisdom it is stillthe one indispensable handbook in the field.

Jon Wagner, in his introduction to Imagesof Information (1979), moves away from theconstraints of the community study and definesanalytic purpose in terms of "modes" of photo-graphic research. In this view, visual sociologyis still dependent primarily on the camera, but isnow conceived as a locus for more widelyapplicable methodologies, or modes of obtain-ing and communicating types of information.Wagner identifies five such modes: photographsas interview stimuli; systematic recording (ofsocial behavior); content analysis of native


12 John Grady

photographs; native image-making; and narra-tive visual theory. In a separate section, heincludes teaching as an extremely importantactivity that, while not a research mode, is stillbest conceptualized as an analytic process.

The most formally developed and encom-passing definition of visual sociology that movesbeyond merely inventorying research tech-niques, however, is Doug Harper's essay "VisualSociology: Expanding Sociological Vision"(1988). Harper's focus is on the analytic pur-pose, or the type of knowledge that the re-searcher seeks to discover. The role of thecamera is still privileged in this definition asHarper identifies two major types of visualsociology. "Visual methods" includes anyproject where researchers "take" photographs(and, by extension, film or video) in order tostudy social worlds. By way of contrast, in whatmight be termed a "visual studies" approach,researchers "analyze" images that are producedby the culture. In this latter approach, "sociolo-gists typically explore the semiotics, or signsystems, of different visual communicationsystems" (Ibid., 82). While Harper acknowl-edges that semiotics is a legitimate endeavor forany visual sociologist, he is most concernedwith what goes on when pictures are "taken."Here he identifies a "typology of methods" thatconsists of four "modes:" 'scientific,' 'narrative,''reflexive,' and the 'phenomenological' (Ibid.,87):

The logic of the typology is found in the ideathat sociologists apprehend information fromthe world in several ways. Sociologistscategorize parts of the world, thus creatingdata (the scientific mode); sociologists usetheir own subjective experience as a sourceof data (the phenomenological mode);sociologists structure their data into ac-counts (the narrative mode); and sociolo-gists build data from the point of view oftheir subjects (the reflexive mode). Thedifferences between these approaches arepartly in the relationship between theresearcher and the data. In the scientificmode, the sociologists looks outside his orher experience for data; as aphenomenologist, the sociologist lookswithin for knowledge. The narrator structuresdata to analyze social life as a social pro-cess, and the reflexive sociologist seeks datain the expression of the subject.

This move from defining visual sociologyas an inventory of research techniques to aninterrelated set of analytic modes or disciplinedways of answering questions or communicatinginformation is an important development invisual sociology, but the results are not assatisfying, nor as useful, as they could be.

In the first place, while an inventory is justa list, it always has the advantage that moreitems can be added to it. Categories, on theother hand, while developing useful ways oforganizing materials, can exclude anything thatdoes not fit the analytic model. For example,Wagner discusses teaching as an analyticprocess and it is easy to add that to his list ofwhat constitutes visual sociology. But the veryformality of Harper's model has no space forincluding a consideration of teaching, exceptperhaps as an application of the researchmodes. In addition, Collier, Wagner and Harperall restrict their discussion to photography orphotographic-like imagery. But the culture hasbeen producing visual messages non-photo-graphically for millennia. Is there any reasonwhy the study of the social content of frescoes,painting, drawing, lithography and other formsof illustration like cartoons and animationshould not be within the province of a visualsociology?2

Secondly, the ways in which the primarycategories of visual sociology are defined isunsatisfactory. In some cases, like Wagner's,they seem to mix apples and oranges. Thephotograph as an "interview stimuli" is more ofa technique than anything else. "Systematicrecording" of social behavior is a methodologi-cal mode and encompasses a number of tech-niques (e.g. time-lapse photography of builtenvironments, filmed sequences of small groupbehavior, and so on). "Native image making" ismore of a project in search of a method.

Harper's typology is constructed withgreater care, but even his categories are ques-tionable. In the first place, the distinction be-tween taking (or making) photographs andanalyzing them is unfortunate because it sug-gests that there isn't much analytic work in-volved in taking pictures. In actual fact, how-ever, the process involves analytic direction andtheorizing from start to finish as Harper's ownoeuvre wonderfully illustrates.3 What Harper is



referring to is probably better expressed aswhether the analyst makes images or findsthem. In either case, the research process isinherently analytic and requires practical knowl-edge of how images are produced whether oneis actually using a camera or looking at otherpeople's pictures.

Secondly, the four modes of visual re-search are not really methodologies. Rather, the"scientific," "narrative," "phenomenological,"and "reflexive" modes are best defined asintellectual commitments to how researchshould be communicated (the narrative), whatthe goals of a research project should be (scien-tific, phenomenological, or reflexive), and whatkinds of information, or data, should be consid-ered acceptable.

From another standpoint, the four modesreflect different emphases in research style.Three of Harper's modes were originally definedas methodological modifications that had to bemade to any genuine scientific analysis ofhuman affairs. From this perspective, these fourmodes are universally necessary ingredients fortheoretical sensitivity, although emphasis mayvary in any given research project. Thus, allsocial analysts are scientists in the sense thatthey have to categorize data in order to makesense of an empirical world. Because suchcategorization is a personal act, good sociolo-gists use their own personal experience as asource of data; and because most data is aboutother people, the point of view of the subject is acrucial component of any analysis. Finally, allscientific accounts are, at root, narratives, nomatter how clumsily and awkwardly the storymay be told. Literary grace and sensitivity to theway those we study express themselves canonly strengthen any research project.

Today, however, epistemological concernshave hardened into ideological stances where acommitment to one set of goals automaticallyexcludes others and where the most importantthing in a research project is not the knowledgeit may provide but the values it extols. In con-structing his typology, Harper has focused onthe epistemological concerns of current socialtheory, reified their leitmotifs and then typifiedthem as methodological modes. The effect ofthis is to characterize visual sociology in terms

of what its practitioners think it should meaninstead of what they actually have to do.

It is important, nevertheless, to acknowl-edge what Harper's definition has accomplishedfor visual sociology. It provides a home foranyone using photographic images to analyzesociety regardless of their theoretical orienta-tion. It also contributes to the continuity of thefield by underscoring its long-standing commit-ment to empirical research. Finally, it affirmsthe importance of photography and othertechnologies that can directly represent behav-ior and its contexts.

A Pragmatic Definition of VisualSociology4

I believe that what Harper defines in his typol-ogy can be achieved more successfully bybuilding on the practical unities of the field:what it is that all sociologists have to do whenthey analyze society visually and what theintellectual prerequisites of this activity may be.This approach to defining visual sociology ispragmatic. It has been influenced by an intellec-tual tradition which was first conceived andarticulated philosophically by Charles SandersPeirce and William James, explicitly elaboratedas a system of social thought by John Deweyand George Herbert Mead, and shaped modernsociology through its base in the early ChicagoSchool. Its influence has been continued inattenuated form in symbolic interactionism andin the grounded theory of Anselm Strauss andBarney Qlaser.

The core of pragmatism is found inPeirce's "pragmatic maxim:" that the meaningof an act or event is to be found in its conse-quences rather than being determined by anyantecedent event or purpose. ,

From this perspective the "working knowl-edge"5 of visual sociology is based on the onething which all visual sociologists have incommon: using images to study society. Amore visual sociology is inconceivable withoutthe existence of something upon which some-thing else that is visually perceptible andintellectually comprehensible can be displayed.The visual image — or icon — is, thus, a func-tional prerequisite to any kind of analysis.


14 John Grady

There are several consequences that followfrom the existential centrality of the icon and itis these, I believe, that should most accuratelyand fruitfully establish the parameters of a morevisual sociology. First, the existence of iconspresupposes that they will be seen, which isbased on the fact that we are sighted creaturesand that seeing is a very significant part of ourlives. Second, icons are constructed to commu-nicate information within a community that canunderstand that information and for which itmust have some importance. Thus, the veryexistence of icons presupposes that visualcommunication is organized socially. Third, italso follows that properties of the icon makepossible certain affordances,6 or uses, whileforeclosing others, and that a more visualsociology must operate within these limits.

The aforementioned considerations sug-gest that visual sociology may be defined ascomposed of three major areas of investigation.The first 1 will term seeing or the study of therole of sight and vision in the construction ofsocial organization and meaning. To my knowl-edge this has never been defined as lying withinthe province of visual sociology althougheverything that is traditionally done in visuallysociology of necessity constitutes a focused andvery specialized exercise of this faculty. It is, ofcourse, ironic that the camera and more moderntechnologies do not seem to be particularlynecessary for the study of "seeing."

I have called the second area communicat-ing with icons. Here we study how spontaneousand deliberate construction of images andimagery communicate information and can beused to manage relationships in society. Thecamera plays an interesting role in these stud-ies. It has been extremely useful as a way ofillustrating and recording data and is a centraltechnology in modern mass communications.But, apart from this, many investigations oficonic communication have successfully reliedon more traditional methods of social scientificand historical research.

I have termed the third area doing sociol-ogy visually. Here we study how the techniquesof producing and decoding images can be usedto empirically investigate social organization,cultural meaning and psychological processes.

EXISTENCE

SEEING

COMMUNICATING

' ' DOING' '• SOCIOLOGY"• ' VISUALLY •

WITH ICONS

Figure 1 The Pragmataic Organization of VisualSociology

It includes those techniques, methodologies andconcerns that have received the most attentionto date and where the camera and other tech-nologies of representation have played anabsolutely crucial role in the analytic process.

The clearest way to visualize the relation-ship between the three areas of visual sociologyis represented in Figure 1.

"Seeing" is a universal human processengaged in naturally by the vast majority of thepopulation who are sighted, as one dimension oftheir "existence" or being-in-the-world. "Com-municating with icons" is a more or less inten-tional process that is articulated culturally andlocated in space and time. It is a highly special-ized and focused instance of "seeing." "Doingsociology visually" is, in turn, a restricted formof "iconic communication" where social scien-tists use visual images for analytic purposes.

These are distinct areas of investigation forthe following reasons. In the first place "seeing"is at root a biological process shared with otheranimals which functions, among other things, toconstitute society. Secondly, "communicatingiconically" is a cultural process that also func-tions to constitute society. Finally, "doingsociology visually" studies how society isconstituted. In spite of the ontological primacyof sight and the historical primacy of patterned



and organized visual communication, thevarieties of "doing" visual sociology haveconsumed most of the energy expended in thefield and constitute, by my reckoning, sixdistinct practices which will be discussed morefully below.

Within the three major areas of visualsociology, there are currently a number ofdistinct practices or characteristic ways ofaddressing recurring questions. These appear tobe defined in terms of five criteria and encom-pass many concerns that will be familiar tovisual sociologists as well as some that will notbut which — my argument suggests — shouldbe. The criteria are:

First, "What do we want from the image?"Defines the purposes of the investigators andhow they attempt to use various images toaccount for the social organization of experi-ence.

Second, "What kinds of information can weactually get from the image?" Identifies theaffordances, or the limits and opportunities thatthe physical quality of the images themselvesafford interpretation.

Third, "What has been done with theimage?" Delineates the social history of how animage has been produced and consumed.

Fourth, "What else is relevant?" Estab-lishes the utility of preexisting traditions ofinquiry, including but not limited to sociology asa discipline.

Finally, "What have we found out and whatmore do we need to know?" Assesses what hasbeen accomplished empirically and analyticallyand what needs to be accomplished.

Seeing is, of course, antecedent to a worldof icons and, thus, its study would be host to itsown particular set of research practices. Theother areas of visual sociology, however, all dealwith icons in various ways. Because of this, it isimperative for the visual sociologist to acknowl-edge those properties that are shared by allicons and which circumscribe the materialparameters of visual sociology the icon canfunction, simultaneously, as both data andmessage. As data, it can, for some purposes,have its contents analyzed in almost completeseparation from its production, and, irrespectiveof anything its subjects might think or feel.

Nevertheless, an analysis of this sort is usuallymost effectively executed if the analyst has aclearly defined hypothesis and variables thatcan be measured with precision. There is adefinite tendency, however, for this kind ofanalysis to encompass only a narrow band ofthe meanings that an image might carry. To usea startling example, photographs of mounds ofbodies from Auschwitz might provide veryuseful data about different somatic patternsunder conditions of prolonged emaciation, andcould be so analyzed without necessarily payingmuch attention to how and why people hadreached that state, nor the sheer horror of whatthe imagery might suggest about what hap-pened.

Icons, however, are almost always mes-sages. Most photographs of people, for ex-ample, suggest meanings that quite often canbe discerned with relative ease. In addition,photographs often suggest other meanings thatmight not be so evident, but which are readilyapparent when identified. What's more, researchinto the motives of the photographer, thesituation of the subject, the interests of theaudience, and the constraints on the archivistwho may have preserved the image can easily

Figure 2

VISUAL SOCIOLOGY

I. SEEING (1)II. COMMUNICATING WITH

ICONS (2)A. ImaginingB. CreatingC. Mythologizing

in. DOING SOCIOLOGY VISUALLYA. Imagining

i. Visualizing (3)ii. Researching (4)

B. Creatingi. Producing (5){{.Teaching (6)

C. Mythologizingi. Interpreting (7)ii. Explicating (8)


16 John Grady

establish whole new layers of meaning. Finally,some of these considerations may complementa naive viewing of the image, and others maydiscredit it. And all that is just for starters!

Thus, while visual sociology encompassesthree major areas of investigation, it is mostuseful for the purposes of this paper to considerthem under the rubric of at least eight distinctpractices. The logical relationship between theseis outlined in Figure 2 where they are identifiedby both italics and Arabic numbers.

SeeingSeeing is the study of the role of sight in theconstitution of social organization and culturalmeaning. Visual sociologists have been inter-ested in what a number of other fields — mostnotably, the history and criticism of the visualand plastic arts (Arnheim, 1969; Gombrich,1982; Winner, 1982) and, especially, psychol-ogy and neurology (Gibson, 1979; Gregory,1970) — have contributed to understanding therole that sight plays in perception and in humancognition. Research suggests that visual percep-tion and cognition are a key element in humanevolution and an integral part of how we learnand develop. In addition, most patterns ofhuman social organization are premised onvisual communication.

As societies have become more complex,the communication, interpretation and negotia-tion of visual cues has become an increasinglyimportant function in daily life. How else couldwe maneuver through a world of strangers? Inaddition, not only has the density of face-to facecommunication increased in contemporarysociety, but also our reliance on growing net-works that have expanded beyond the range ofvision has become a hallmark of a globalsociety. It is certainly not coincidental, therefore,that the invention and development of photogra-phy took place when it did. It is, after all, atechnique that both enhances the social powerof visual stimulation and provides the means formore clearly understanding and manipulating it.Mass communication media now provides uswith essential information about our workadayenvironment where once ordinary vision wouldhave sufficed.

While it is certain that the functions of ourbio-physical systems set the limits on the kindsof information that visual cognition can provide,it is not at all clear whether mind and cultureplay a significant part in determining what weexperience and learn visually. Behaviorists oncethought that the mind was a convenient place tostore useful repertoires of response patterns andlittle more. Today, cognitivists prize the role ofhigher order functions — whether innate orlearned — in shaping what we see. Is our capac-ity to see, hard-wired in our brain, or can cultureshape the development of perception andcognition (Gardner, 1988; Kosslyn, 1995;Kosslyn and Koenig, 1992; Pinker, 1994; Segall,Campbell and Herskovitz, 1966)?

Some of the most important currentdebates assessing the role of social institutionsand diverse cultural arrangement as influencesin human experience are taking place in cogni-tive science, and it is in the area of visualperception and cognition that a very importantpragmatic challenge to both behaviorism andcognitivists has been issued. James Gibson hasargued that most theories of visual perceptionand cognition have been flawed by their relianceon experimental designs that inhibit the abilityof subjects to adjust their vision by moving theirheads or bodies. Gibson has demonstrated thatstudies of natural vision indicate that most ofour information comes from direct perception ofthe environment.

Nevertheless, visual sociologists shouldhave much to contribute to the naturalistic studyof visual perception and cognition. This isbecause, as Coulter and Parsons so wonderfullypoint out, we do much more than just "see" inour daily lives:

There are many diverse verbs of visualorientation (of which 'perceive' is but oneamong many), some of which can combinewith diverse complementizers, markingdiverse perceptual modalities in the domainof vision: attending, beholding, browsing,catching sight of, checking out, discerning,discriminating, distinguishing, espying,examining, experiencing, eying, gazing (at,through, upon, around, in[to], up, at),glancing (at, over, through, upon, around,into), glimpsing, having in sight, holding in



view, inspecting, leering (at), looking (at,for, over , into, through, up, under, around),making out, noticing (that), observing (that,through), ogling, peeking, peeping, perceiv-ing, perusing, picking up, poring over,recognizing (as, that, how), scanning,scrutinizing, searching (for, among, aroundfor, under, through), seeing (as, that,through, into), seeking (for), setting one'seyes on, sighting, skimming, spotting,spying (on), squinting, staring (at), studying,surveying, taking in, taking notice of,viewing, watching (for, over), witnessing,and others (Coulter and Parsons, 1990:261).

Even if language does not determine howwe see the world, the verbs we use testify to themeanings we attribute to various ways of actingin and upon our environment. They documenthow different our visual orientation is dependingupon the significance of the people, things andevents with which we are concerned. Imaginethe nouns that could be used as the objects ofCoulter and Parson's torrent of verbs. Imaginehow the emotional impact and cognitive signifi-cance of these newly assembled phrases mightvary and what the consequences of these mightbe for action. This is how a sociology of seeingwould begin.

Communicating with IconsOur daily lives are full of images. Consciousnessis a sensually active process that is negotiatedin thickets of sound, touch, smell, taste andsight. It should come as no surprise, then, thatdaily life involves the spontaneous and deliber-ate construction of images to communicateinformation and manage social relations. Onedimension of this may be termed "imagining"and refers to a kind of shadow world of con-sciousness that we experience in day-dreaming,fantasy, as well as the extraordinary world ofdreaming that we only become aware of as weemerge from sleep (Singer, 1968). In a senseimagining is a product of an on-going communi-cation of the self with itself that we can barelycontrol with even the most rigorous discipline. Itis a realm of intense immediacy that can oftenonly be recollected and explicated with thedensest of narratives. While intensely personal,

it is still inherently social — and best seen as an"internal social world" — and it can only benegotiated in the "external" worlds we occupywhere it can be the source of surprising collec-tive mobilizations as well as exploitation byothers (Caughey, 1984).

Another dimension can be referred to as"creating." This constitutes those processes bywhich visual imagery and technology areactively Fitted into the everyday patterns ofexpressiveness of the general population. Itincludes just about any construction and assem-bly of artifacts for embellishing the process andproducts of daily life. It can include the function-ally purposeful as well as that which is not.Students of popular culture have produced arich literature on this subject (Csikzentmihalyiand Rochberg-Halton, 1981). Visual sociologistshave, in addition, made notable contributions.Richard Chalfen's work on vernacular photogra-phy, or what he terms "Kodak culture" (1987)and studies of visual displays and secularshrines in domestic and non-domestic settingsare stellar examples.

A final dimension, categorized as "my-thologizing," refers to the processes of institu-tionally organized communication. In contempo-rary life this includes advertising (Fox, 1984),the motion picture and television industries(Barnouw, 1978; Baughman, 1992; Diamond,1975 and 1978; Gitlin, 1983; Jarvie, 1970) andspecialized art worlds (Becker, 1982). This is arich area of study for visual sociologists andshould include not only the ways in whicheconomic and political considerations affect theworkaday life of those who communicate for aliving but also the ways in which audiencesparticipate in the process (Blumer, 1933; Lull,1990). There is increasingly sophisticated workdone in this area of investigation by students ofmass communication, and Becker's Art Worlds(1982) is an exemplar of sociological analysisbecause of its focus on studying communicationand its products as an industrial process andway of organizing work.

Visualizing

Visualizing is the process of constructing de-signs to represent concepts or to organize


18 John Grady

information. Common examples of the productsof visualization include maps, graphs, tables,charts and models (Cleveland, 1993; Henry,1995). We visualize in order to create newconcepts; to identify and order logical andmetaphoric relations between existing concepts;and to clarify expression (Lynch and Woolgar,1990). Although sociologists make heavy use ofvisualization, they have paid virtually no atten-tion to how these products should be used. Thisis an area, in fact, where standards of perfor-mance have deteriorated over the last thirtyyears or so. The reason is quite simple. Whereasin the past sociologists knew next to nothingabout graphic design, they only had a limitedvocabulary to misuse. Today, sociologists havea vast array of images and applications at theirfingertips and so the possibilities for inappropri-ate use have increased geometrically. As aresult, sociology textbooks (which are the mostegregious offenders) are awash with full colordisplays with messages that are in the majorityof cases either trivial or misleading. Fortunately,in recent years geographers (Lobeck, 1993;Monmonier, 1991 and 1993; and Wood, 1992)have written extensively on the proper construc-tion and use of maps, while designers haveexplored the appropriate use of other forms ofgraphic display. Especially noteworthy is thework of Edward Tufte (1983; 1990) whoteaches political science, statistics and graphicdesign at Yale University. His influence is visiblein Wallgren et al's Graphing Statistics and Data(1996), the first contemporary textbook on thesubject written for introductory students.

Visualization requires that sociologists paymore attention to visual logic and aesthetics.These include the ability to concretize concepts,put information in context, and apply principlesof graphic design, drawing, and composition tothe models we create. One very important taskfor visual sociologists is to begin to assess thequality of those visualizations we use to displaythe data generated by our most importanttheoretical concerns.

ResearchingIn this context, researching refers to producingor using already existing images as data forbehavioral analysis. My use of this term covers

much of what Wagner refers to as "systematicrecording" and Harper includes under the rubricof the "scientific" mode of taking pictures.Examples include still and time-lapse photogra-phy and movies to study how built environmentsare used, social interaction managed, bodylanguage displayed (Zube, 1979; Whyte, 1988;Birdwhistell, 1970), and cultural norms per-formed (Bateson and Mead, 1942; Collier,1967). I would also include photo-elicitationwhere photographs are used to focus the atten-tion of a subject and elicit more and richerinformation (Harper, 1987; Gold, 1991). Visualsociologists have been quite creative in usingphotography and film as research tools. Butmany of the techniques they have developedcontinue to be seen as idiosyncratic. They areeither identified as part of the personal signatureof the researcher or with a particular substantivearea of research, like the study of body lan-guage and non-verbal communication. This isunfortunate because many of these techniquesand methods have wide applicability and shouldbe a part of every social scientist's tool kit.

Developing technical skill in this branch ofvisual sociology will require increased attentionto the use of photography in research designand learning how to measure behavior in visualimages. Interdisciplinary work with anthropolo-gists and psychologists is absolutely necessaryto develop appropriate protocols for analyzingvisual imagery produced in experimental as wellas natural settings. That much more work needsto be done in this area of visual sociology,however, should not lead us to underestimatewhat has been accomplished by an enterprisethat begins with Bateson and Mead's BalineseCulture, continues in John and MalcolmCollier's Visual Anthropology and Jon Wagner'sImages of Information, and is represented todayin the pages of Visual Sociology and otherjournals.

ProducingProducing refers to photographing (filming) andassembling (editing) visual images to communi-cate a message about the actual purposes andsignificance of conduct. Documentary films andphotojournalism constitute the best knownexamples of what might be termed "visual



essays" (Grady, 1991). As we will see below,producing a visual essay mirrors the analyticprocesses involved in explicating a narrative. Avisual essay has to fulfill the aesthetic canons ofnarrative, but it must also tell what, in fact,happened. It is valued by sociologists because itenables the producer to recreate the feel andimmediacy of a social world and present behav-ior in context. Visual essays are powerful toolsfor teaching about social life and sociologicalanalysis. Nevertheless, while sociologists oftenuse documentary films in the classroom, theyrarely produce them themselves. Notableexceptions are Jim Ault (1987), Bruce Jackson(1979), Michael Loukinen (Loukinen, 1983;1984; 1987; 1991) and myself (Broadman andGrady, 1979; 1982; 1983; 1986; 1987; andGrady 1990; 1995). Sociologists more typicallyproduce visual essays using still images. Asmall sample of such work includes: DougHarper (1982); Phyllis Ewen (1979); Bill Aron(1979); Bruce Jackson (1977; Jackson andChristian, 1980); Dona Schwartz, (1992); andRogovin, Rogovin and Grady (1988). Ironically,sociologists use photographic visual essays inthe classroom less often than they do film.Technological developments like thecamcorder, computerized interactive video andediting soft-ware programs like Adobe Premiereare making the visual essay increasingly attrac-tive and affordable. Sociologists who wish towork in these media must learn the basics ofphotography and video production. Most impor-tantly, however, is integrating the aestheticnecessities for good story-telling with socialscientific requirements for evidence. Protocolsdeveloped by practitioners of grounded theory(Cf. Strauss and Corbin, 1990, and Suchar, inpress) provide appropriate models for makingfilms and photo-essays that are sociologicallysound.

TeachingIt is important to acknowledge the inherentcreativity of teaching — that it serves not onlyas a source of ideas for the research process —but also as a way of exploring and testing ideasand findings. This is especially true for pragma-tists, who believe that teaching and learning aremost effective when they are built around a

process of discovery. In addition, teaching mostfields of sociology provides many opportunitiesfor using visual materials productively. Fictionaland non-fictional visual essays can be a veryimportant resource in the classroom. Visualsociologists should explore such questions as:When should a film be used in its entirety, andhow should students be prepared to view it?How should clips be used, and how should theybe discussed? How can student products beintegrated with classroom activity? How arestudents brought to seeing the serious uses ofwhat they often demean as just entertainment;and so on? These issues have been touched onby a number of authors including Curry andClarke (1983), Papademas (1993), and Wagner(1979) as well as in numerous articles in thejournal Teaching Sociology. Like writing, visualliteracy improves with practice. The routine useof visual materials in the classroom can thusdevelop students' imaginations and sensibilities.Above all, it will encourage the student tocritically view the messages of a culture thatincreasingly relies on visual communication.

Classroom use of visual materials shouldnot just be limited to film and video. There aremany exercises that can be done with Polaroidcameras. For example, students can be as-signed the task of visually representing a theo-retical concept photographically. Looking for animage to represent a concept — when combinedwith subsequent discussion in the classroom ofthe adequacy of student representations — is amarvelous way for students to begin to exploreconcepts and arguments. Additionally, thetheoretical sensitivity developed in exercises likethese can be used in methods classes as a wayof learning how to operationalize concepts andbuild theory by observing social process. Stu-dents can analyze videotapes of brief interviewsand interactions and then they can replay andanalyze them again several times in a normalclass period, and each time students will usuallydiscover new layers of meaning.

InterpretingWe "interpret" visual images when we identifythe symbolic meanings of images that wereproduced as a by-product of an activity. Ex-amples include snapshots, yearbooks, home


20 John Grady

videos and advertisements when they are usedto study self-image, ideology, and cultural style.Visual sociologists have demonstrated morecreativity in their choice of subjects than in theiruse of interpretive technique and analysis. Forthe most part, visual sociologists tend to rely onsimple protocols of content analysis. In somecases, they use methods of data collection andanalysis that are overly impressionistic. JeanKilboume's Killing Us Softly (1979) and SutJhally's Dreamworlds (1991) are particularlyegregious examples of this tendency. In general,however, there is by now a sizable corpus ofempirical work of impressive quality. Thisincludes, in no particular order: studies of familysnapshots (Chalfen, 1987 and 1991; King,1984; Lesy, 1980); gravestone designs (Deetz,1977); lithographs and photographs frommagazines and engravings and portrait paintings(Richardson and Kroeber, 1940; Robinson,1976); and postcards (Mellinger, 1992). Whileinterpretive studies like the above are becomingincreasingly common, they still tend to be linkedto interest in the author's oeuvre or to a particu-lar subject matter, like fashion. The majorexception to this rule is found in the study ofadvertising (Goffman, 1979; O'Barr, 1994;Papson, 1985; Williamson, 1978).

There had been a tendency to use thesekinds of visual materials for wide-ranging socialcriticism, with the unfortunate side effect ofneglecting important methodological questions.A top priority for sociologists who use visualimages for behavioral research is to developmore sophisticated methods of content analysisand what might be called "context analysis,"which would develop ways of integrating themeanings that what is represented had for thosewho produced the image or were represented byit. Visual sociologists have an important role toplay in defining more disciplined protocols forthe analysis of the visual residue of everydaylife. Some of this will be based on ethnographicstudies of popular and material culture (cf.Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981and Halle, 1993) . Much can be learned, how-ever, from historians and archivists about howto reconstruct what these kinds of representa-tions meant to the social worlds that producedand consumed them (Burke, 1976; Caulfield,1992; Schlereth 1980 and 1990).

ExplicatingExplicating refers to the process of identifyingand explaining the symbolic meanings ofalready existing images that were produced totell a story. Examples include both fiction andnon-fiction film and photography, and, byextension, comics, animation and illustratedstories. These products are fabrications thatreconstruct the experience of a social world andto some extent the details of its history and dailyround. In the case of fictional materials, thepurpose of the author is to create a compelling"imaginary world." When an audience is able toidentify with the happenings in this world offantasy, they are able to both release andrecognize emotions in their own "real" lives.Although the techniques of fabrication are verysimilar for "non-fiction" work — and the emo-tional impact on the audience is often the same— the purpose is quite different: to enlist theemotions of the audience to appropriate the"actuality" of another world, or as Bill Nicholsputs it, "At the heart of documentary is less astory and its imaginary world than an argumentabout the historical world" (Nichols, 1991: 111).This means that, while non-fiction works areheld to a different standard of accountability intheir use of visual materials (e.g. accuracy),both they and fictional work take the form ofnarratives, or stories, and are constructedaround a story line that involves consistent andcoherent unities of place, character and event.Stories, in short, have to be plausible, no matterhow fantastical. Their greatest use is as a way ofexploring the sensibility of an age or a culture(Weakland, 1984). Sociologists, however, havenot engaged in explicating texts althoughinterest is increasing (Cf. Denzin, 1987 and1991). Generally speaking, this is the provinceof literary and cultural criticism. As might beexpected, some of the most promising tech-niques for analyzing visual narratives are de-rived from literary and film criticism which canbe both adapted to, and complement, traditionalsociological analysis. Nevertheless, much morework needs to be done in adjusting the tech-niques of the criticism of fiction to sociologicalanalysis if the social content of narratives are tobe understood clearly. I.C. Jarvie's "method-ological rules" to guide film interpretation are a



significant step in that direction (Jarvie, 1987:293). The importance of studying the content ofmovies cannot be over-estimated. They andtheir derivatives on television constitute thesignal art form of this century and are in manyways our most sensitive barometer of popularvalues and concerns. One of the top prioritiesfor a more visual sociology will be to develop aneffective interpretative protocol for analyzing thesocial content of movies; devising criteria foridentifying representative films; coming to aconsensus about what would be included on anappropriate list of films; and then subjectingthem to sustained analysis.

Conclusion

Our field is best characterized as a "movement"(Harper, 1994: 411) toward a "more visualsociology" (Chaplin, 1994)7. While it emerged"primarily [as] a sub-field of qualitative sociol-ogy" (Harper, 1994: 403) it is becoming in-creasingly apparent that it has much to contrib-ute to quantitative sociology as well. The mostimportant thing about visual sociology is that itintroduces an entirely new type of informationinto the discipline of sociology as a whole(Harper, 1996: 69). Viewed in this way, thevisual image, or icon, complements the situatedobservation of ethnographic fieldwork, and thecontrolled response of survey research, whichare the primary sources of information for thetwo major traditions of empirical sociology. Theicon also complements the various artifacts thatare used in research based on unobtrusivemeasures as well as, of course, the face-to-faceinterview upon which all methods of sociologicalresearch ultimately rest.

From one standpoint, the approach tovisual sociology that I have sketched out aboveis broader than the prevailing view that defines itas the use of photography in social scienceresearch. In the first place, this approach high-lights the importance of studying the role ofsight in making social organization possible. Assuch, it is part of a more recent tendency in thesocial sciences to "problematize" the sensesboth in experience and for analysis. When manyof us were trained in sociology we were oftentold about how important it was to "get the feel"of a setting and to become aware of the

"sounds," the "smells," and, of course, the"look" of our subjects, their worlds and theirinteractions. But these injunctions mostlyfunctioned metaphorically as reminders to bealert to our surroundings and, of course, to"keep our eyes open." Visual sociologists werethe first to explicitly explore those dimensions ofexperience that had often provided generationsof sociologists with their most valid and reliableinformation. If visual sociology has a contribu-tion to make to epistemology it is that it hasacknowledged that we are endowed with bodiesand should learn to use them better than we do.

Patrizia Faccioli and Andrea Pitasi askwhether visual sociology is something "more" or"something different" (Faccioli and Pitasi, 1995:59). I hope that this paper has established that itis certainly an important adjunct to more tradi-tional approaches to sociology. But I do believethat a more visual sociology also constitutessomething different. Visual data can be inte-grated and triangulated with most other tech-niques of qualitative and quantitative analysis.This wide range of relevance and applicability —and the fact that so little has been made of ituntil relatively recently — strongly suggests thatthe social analysis of icons requires a sensibilitythat is not common in contemporary sociology.In actual fact, historical evidence indicates thata visual sensibility was suppressed in the earlyyears of American sociology (Stasz, 1979).Whether the new movement in visual sociologywill be successful in revitalizing a sensibility thatcan be found in the works of Charles SandersPeirce (Roberts, 1973) and, especially, JohnDewey (Dewey, 1934) remains to be seen. Butit will not happen until the community of visualsociologists develops a comprehensive andempirically grounded theory of the sociology ofsight and iconic communication.

Notes1 Elizabeth Chaplin, in Sociology and Visual

Representation, (1994) does not refer to visualsociology as such but rather to a "more visualsociology." This, I believe, should be the goal ofvisual sociologists: to make sociology more visual.

2 Elizabeth Chaplin's Sociology and VisualRepresentation (1994), for example, focuses most ofits attention on the work of painters and other artistsand she is as concerned with the cognitive (and


22 John Grady

political) consequences of type-face choice as she iswith the research capability of the camera.

3Harper himself puts it best when he says: "Ihave been repeating, like a mantra, that one shouldphotograph with an idea in mind. The act of photo-graphing includes a process of analysis (personalcommunication)." An excellent example of Harper'sfusion of technique and analysis is found throughouthis account of teaching a course on visual sociologyat the University of Amsterdam. (Harper, 1990: 34)

4My discussion of pragmatism has beeninfluenced by the following works: Hans Joas,Pragmatism and Social Theory (1993), EugeneRochberg-Halton, Meaning and Modernity (1986)and Cornel West, The American Evasion of Philoso-phy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism (1989).

5By "working knowledge" I am referring to thatwhich is often encompassed by terms like "lore,""knowing the ropes," "tacit assumptions," "rules ofthumb," and the like. One of the clearest discussionsof the phenomena which underscores its importancein everyday life and experience is found in DougHarper's visual ethnography, Working Knowledge(1987).

6The concept, defined by Gibson: "Theaffordances of the environment are what it offers theanimal, what it provides or furnishes, either for goodor ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, butthe noun affordance is not. I have made it up. I meanby it something that refers to both the environmentand the animal in a way that no existing term does. Itimplies the complementarity of the animal and theenvironment. . ." (Gibson, 1979: 127-8).

7See Harper (1996) for an account of visualsociology as a movement leading to the formation ofthe International Visual Sociology Association.

ReferencesAmheim, Rudolf. 1969. Visual Thinking. Berkeley:

University of California Press.Aron, Bill. 1979. "A Disappearing Community," in

Wagner, Jon, ed., Images of Information. BeverlyHills, California: Sage. 59-68.

Ault, James. 1987. Born Again. New York: JamesAult Films.

Barnouw, Erik. 1978. The Sponsor. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bateson, Gregory and Margaret Mead. 1942. BalineseCharacter. New York: New York Academy ofSciences.

Baughman, James L. 1992. The Republic of MassCulture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley:

University of California Press.Birdwhistell, Ray. 1970. Kinesics and Context.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Blumer, Herbert. 1933. Movies and Conduct. New

York: Macmillan.Broadman, Richard and John Grady. 1979. Mission

Hill and the Miracle of Boston. Boston: CineResearch Associates.

. 1982. Down the Projects: The Crisis ofPublic Housing. Boston: Cine Research Associates.

. 1983. Water and the Dream of theEngineers. Boston: Cine Research Associates.

. 1986. The Collective: Fifteen Years Later.Boston: Cine Research Associates.

. 1987. Love Stories: Women, Men andRomance. Boston: Cine Research Associates.

Burke, Peter. 1976. "Oblique Approaches to the Historyof Popular Culture," in C.W.E. Bixby, ed.,Approaches to Popular Culture. Bowling Green,Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press. 69-84.

Caughey, John. 1984. Imaginary Worlds. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

Caulfield, Jon. 1992. "A Framework for a Sociologyof Visual Images," Visual Sociology 7(2): 60-71.

Chalfen, Richard. 1987. Snapshot Versions of Life.Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green StateUniversity Press.

. 1991. Turning Leaves: The PhotographicCollections of Two Japanese American Families.Albuquerque: New Mexico University Press.

Chaplin, Elizabeth. 1994. Sociology and VisualRepresentation. New York: Routledge.

Cleveland, William S. 1993. Visualizing Data. MurrayHill, New Jersey: AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Collier, John. 1967. Visual Anthropology: Photographyas a Research Method. New York: Holt Rinehartand Winston, (second edition, 1986, with MalcolmCollier).

Coulter, Jeff and E.D. Parsons. 1991. "The Praxiologyof Perception: Visual Orientations and PracticalAction." Inquiry 33: 251-272.

Csikzentmihalyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton.1981. The Meaning of Things. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Curry, Timothy J. and Alfred C. Clarke. 1983.Introducing Visual Sociology. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

Deetz, James. 1977. In Small Things Forgotten: TheArcheology of Early American Life. Garden City,N.Y.: Doubleday.

Denzin, Norman. 1991. Hollywood Shot by Shot:Alcoholism in American Cinema. New York: Aldinede Gruyter.

. 1995. The Cinematic Society. Thousand



Oaks, CA: Sage.Dewey, John. 1934. Art as Experience. New York:

Minton, Balch and Company.Diamond, Edwin. 1975. The Tin Kazoo. Cambridge:

MIT Press.. 1978. Good News, Bad News. Cambridge:

MIT Press.Ewen, Phyllis. 1979. "The Beauty Ritual," in Wagner,

Jon, ed., Images of Information. Beverly Hills,California. 43-58.

Faccioli, Patrizia and Andrea Pitasi. 1995. "A Portraitof Italian Visual Sociology." Visual Sociology 10(1-2): 50-60.

Fox. Stephen. 1984. The Mirror Makers. New York:Morrow.

Gardner, Howard. 1988. The Mind's New Science. NewYork: Basic Books.

Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach toVisual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gitlin, Todd. 1983. Inside Prime Time. New York:Pantheon.

Goffman, Erving. 1979. Gender Advertisements.London: Macmillan.

Gold, Steve. 1991. "Ethnic Boundaries and EthnicEntrepreneurs: A Photo-elicitation Study." VisualSociology 6 (2): 9-22.

Gombrich, E.H. 1982. The Image and the Eye. London:Phaidon Press.

Grady, John. 1990. Home Care. Boston: Cine ResearchAssociates.

. 1991. "The Visual Essay and Sociology."Visual Sociology 6 (2): 23-38.

. 1995. Just a Fight. Boston: Cine ResearchAssociates.

Gregory, R. L. 1970. The Intelligent Eye. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Guba, Egon G. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1994."Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research,"in Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, eds.,Handbook of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Halle, 1993. Inside Culture. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Harper, Douglas. 1982. Good Company. Chicago:Universtiy of Chicago Press.

. 1987. Working Knowledge: Skill andCommunity in a Small Shop. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

. 1988. "Visual Sociology: ExpandingSociological Vision." American Sociologist 19 (1):54-70.

. 1990. "Visual Sociology at the Universityof Amsterdam: Personal Notes and Reflections,"Visual Sociology Review 5 (2): 34-40.

. 1994. "On the Authority of the Image:

Visual Sociology at the Crossroads," Denzin,Norman K. and Yvonna Lincoln, eds., Handbookof Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage.

. 1996. "Seeing Sociology," AmericanSociologist 27 (3), 69-78.

Henry, Gary. 1995. Graphing Data. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Jackson, Bruce. 1977. Killing Time: Life in theArkansas Penitentiary. Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress.

. 1979. Death Row. Buffalo: DocumentaryResearch.

Jackson, Bruce and Diane Christian. 1980. Death Row.Boston: Beacon Press.

Jarvie, Ian. 1970. Movies and Society. New York: BasicBooks.

. 1987. The Philosophy of the Film. NewYork: Routledge.

Jhally, Sut. 1991. Dreamworlds. Northampton, MA:Media Education Foundation.

Joas, Hans. 1993. Pragmatism and Social Theory.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kilbourne, Jean. 1979. Killing Us Softly. Cambridge:Cambridge Documentary Films.

King, Graham. 1984. Say "Cheese"! Looking atSnapshots in a New Way. New York: Dodd, Meadand Company.

Kosslyn, Stephen M. 1995. "Mental Imagery," inStephen M. Kosslyn and Daniel N. Osherson, eds.,Visual Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kosslyn, Stephen M. and Olivier Koening. 1992. WetMind: The New Cognitive Neuroscience. New York:Free Press.

Leiss, William, Stephen Kline and Sut Jhally. 1986.Social Communication in Advertising: Persons,Products, and Images of Well-being. New York:Methuen.

Lesy, Michael. 1980. The Meaning of Family Pictures.New York: Pantheon.

Lobeck, Armin K. 1993. Things Maps Don't Tell Us.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loukinen, Michael. 1983. Tradition Bearers. Marquette,MI: UP North Films.

. 1984. Finnish-American Lives. Marquette,MI: UP North Films.

. 1987. Good Man in the Woods. Marquette,MI: UP North Films.

. 1991. Medicine Fiddle. Marquette, MI: UPNorth Films.

Lull, James. 1990. Inside Family Viewing. New York:Routledge.

Lynch, Michael and Steve Woolgar, eds. 1990.Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Mellinger, Wayne. 1992. "Representing Blackness in


24 John Grady

the White Imagination: Images of Happy Darkeys'in Popular Culture, 1893-1917." Visual Sociology7(2): 3-21.

Monmonier, Mark. 1991. How to Lie With Maps.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

. 1993. Mapping It Out Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing Reality. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Nordstrom, Alison Devine. 1992. "Wood Nymphs andPatriots: Depiction of Samoans in the NationalGeographic Magazine, Visual Sociology 7(2): 49-59.

O'Barr, William. 1994. Culture and the Ad. Boulder,CO: Westview

Papademas, Diane. 1993. "Visual Sociology: Syllabi."Teaching Resources Project. Washington, D.C.:American Sociological Association.

Papson, Stephen. 1985. "The Fantasy of the Strangerin Women's Advertising." International Journal ofVisual Sociology 2: 57-73.

Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. NewYork: Morrow.

Reid, John Edgar. 1992. "The Television Archive: ASource for the Sociological Study of Culture."Visual Sociology 7(1): 80-88.

Richardson, J. and A.L. Kroeber. 1940. "ThreeCenturies of Women's Dress Fashions: AQuantitative Analysis." Anthropological Records5 (2): 111-153.

Roberts, D.D. 1973. The Existential Graphs of CharlesSanders Peirce. The Hague: Mouton.

Robinson, D.E. 1976. "Fashions in the Shaving andthe Trimming of the Beard: The Men of theIllustrated London News, 1842-1972." AmericanJournal of Sociology 81 (5): 1133-1141.

Rogovin, Janice, Diane Rogovin and John Grady.1988. Let Me Tell You Where I've Been. Boston:Clive Press.

Schlereth, Thomas J. 1980. Artifacts and the AmericanPast. Nashville, Tennessee: American Associationfor State and Local History.

. 1990. Cultural History and MaterialCulture: Everyday Life, Landscapes, Museums.Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press ofVirginia.

Schwartz, Dona. 1992. Waucoma Twilight.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian.

Segall, Marshall H. , Donald T. Campbell and MelvilleHerskovitz. 1966. The Influence of Culture onVisual Perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Singer, Jerome. 1968. The Inner World of DayDreaming. New York: Harper and Row.

Stasz, Clarice. 1979. "The Early History of VisualSociology," in Jon Wagner, ed., Images of

Information. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of

Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Suchar, Charles. 1988. "Photographing the Changing

Material Culture of a Changing GentrifiedCommunity." Visual Sociology 3 (2): 17-22.

. 1993. "The Jordaan: Community Changeand Gentrification in Amsterdam." Visual Sociology8(1): 41-51.

Tufte, Edward. 1983. The Visual Display ofQuantitative Information. Cheshire, Connecticut:Graphics Press.

. 1990. Envisioning Information. Cheshire,Connecticut: Graphics Press.

Wagner, Jon. 1979. "Photographs as Background,Illustration and Data," in Wagner, Jon. ed., Imagesof Information. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wallgren, Anders et al. 1996. Graphing Statistics andData. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Weakland, John H. 1984. "Feature Films as CulturalDocuments," in Paul Hocking, ed., Principles ofVisual Anthropology. New York: Mouton. 45-68.

West, Cornel. 1989. The American Evasion ofPhilosophy. Madison: University of WisconsinPress.

White, Jan. 1984. Using Charts and Graphs. New York:Bowker.

Whyte, William H. 1988. The City: Rediscovering theCenter. New York: Doubleday.

Williamson, Judith. 1978. Decoding Advertisements:Ideology and Meaning in Advertising. London:Marion Boyars.

Winner, Ellen. 1982. Invented Worlds: The Psychologyof the Arts. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UniversityPress.

Wood, Denis. 1992. The Power of Maps. New York:The Guildford Press.

Zube, Ervin. 1979. "Pedestrians and Wind," in Wagner,Jon, ed., Images of Information. Beverly Hills:Sage. 69-84.


The Scope of Visual Sociology

Documents

Transcript of The Scope of Visual Sociology