Harrison White’s magnum opus, Identity and Control (I&C), does not stand out as a model of clarity, although there is (in my view) a marked improvement between the first edition (Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action) (1992) and the second edition (Identity and Control: How Social Formations Emerge) (2008). Still, one comment I have often heard from sociologists reading I&C is that, after pages of demanding prose and moments of deep confusion, a particular idea may occasionally shine through with unexpected clarity. This often happens, it seems, because the idea either aligns with a unique interest of the reader or presents a way out of an intellectual dead-end. For me, this has been the case with White’s concept of style: of all the ideas in I&C, style is the one that resonates deeply with me, providing insights that can help solve sociological puzzles that intrigue me. In this sense, I agree with Boorman’s (2011) intuition that a “carefully developed concept of style may shed useful light” on a variety of “observation tasks.”
I assisted White in revising I&C’s chapter on style (alongside Larissa Buchholz). This was part of a broader effort by Harrison White to rewrite the 1992 version of I&C: participants of the Columbia G9110 Sociology graduate seminar “Identity and Control” (Fall, 2005) were involved in this endeavor. This seminar was later expanded to several classes, notably, Sociology 4030: Sociology of Language, to reflect on various aspects pertaining to the book and its possible applications. Other contributors to the I&C revision process were Anna Mitschele, Don Steiny, Haiko Lietz, Matthias Thiemann, Millie Sue, Rozlyn Redd, Sabine Wuerkner, and Victor Corona. I have wonderful memories of this time and all my discussions with Harrison White, other graduate students, and various scholars who were drawn into the conversation (notably Scott Boorman). In this short essay, I will consider some ideas related to White’s understanding of style in hopes of renewing dialogue around the concept. I will also present a few articles co-authored with him on this topic and my own work that was inspired by this experience.
Referring back to the 2008 edition of I&C, it is clear that style is central to the book: it is discussed in Chapter 4 of I&C’s eight chapters, with the last chapter serving as an overview. In Chapter 8, Figure 8.1 visually places style at the center. It connects the key concepts of the first three chapters (networks, stories, identities, control, and disciplines) to the broader concepts discussed later (institutions, rhetorics, and regimes). Style is also the only concept described as both “porous” and “involute,” meaning it has a malleable, yet self-sufficient (“introverted”), conceptual nature. This is an example of White’s demanding prose, which I hope has not caused confusion. I trust some clarity will emerge below.
Chapter 4 of I&C (2008) opens with the intriguing notion that “a sensibility is how style presents itself in experience.” In other words, styles can be easily perceived in our lives; we know they exist, and we can often recognize and name them. Things become more complex when we take a more rational perspective on style because it “can be of any scope and level: it is a scale-invariant concept.” At the same time, it resonates with the idea that style is a flexible and malleable concept that permeates social life (it can be found in rituals, personal mannerisms, organizational outcomes, or even broader cultural milieus). In this way, it differs for example from institutions and regimes, which are more rigid and stable. Yet, it remains more rigid than identities and networks, which are constantly changing and evolving.
Thus, a key insight here is that styles bring order to identities and networks while introducing change to broader constructs such as institutions and regimes. This may be the core paradox that makes style so fascinating: it serves as both a source of stability and a source of change. Which aspect dominates depends on perspective: it stabilizes networks and identities (and can, in fact, be seen as a form of identity) while destabilizing institutions and regimes.
White also strongly insists on the stochastic nature of style. It can emerge from random movements in networks or evolve somewhat unpredictably, for example, into genres (Lena, 2012). This is an important idea: change does not arise from purposive action or mandates from higher-order social structures alone. Rather, the concept of style incorporates the idea that change can encompass all of the above and also be random.
But what does the concept of style, as developed by White, bring to sociological research? First, in my opinion, one tendency in sociology is to rely on concepts that suffer from conceptual inflation (e.g., everything becomes an institution). As such, sociologists greatly need a more refined taxonomy of social forms, and style does just that: it brings much-needed diversity and nuance to the sociological conceptual toolkit. In Godart and White (2010), we distinguished two types of style: style alpha versus style beta. Style alpha is related to innovation, and it is about being distinctive. It is not fully formalized, may not be easily recognized by non-experts, and is often debated by experts. It emerges from the “primordial soup” (so to speak) of identities, control attempts, and networks. The features of style alpha may not be entirely clear to observers, but they are the elements that give rise to style beta, a type of style that is recognized and explicitly referenced. Styles beta can then, in turn, be used in styles alpha as references, since styles alpha do not emerge from a vacuum. Both styles alpha and beta are purposive, emerging from identities’ efforts to control other identities and—more broadly—find footing in the empirical world. Style beta can then give rise to institutions such as genres and artistic movements.
Second, style can be a particularly effective sociological tool for understanding social action in general and strategic action under uncertainty in particular (White et al., 2007a, 2007b). There are three forms of uncertainty: “Ambage is the uncertainty referring to social relations and ambiguity the uncertainty referring to meanings. Both relate to stochastic environments through contingency, the third type of uncertainty” (White et al., 2013, p. 138). Style reduces all forms of uncertainty by guiding action and anchoring meanings. As a recognizable and durable pattern of actions (Godart, 2018), style influences with whom identities may connect and how they combine meanings.
Third, and relatedly, style is the glue that connects identities in networks. It plays a critical role in keeping “network-domains” (or netdoms) together, guiding switchings, that is to say network dynamics and the emergence of meanings (Corona & Godart, 2010; White et al., 2007a, 2007b). It is a powerful form of communication (verbal and non-verbal): it can convey messages that go beyond direct statements and sets the tone for interactions.
Empirically, style can be approached and measured in different ways. Let us take a look at two examples. First, for organizations competing in the creative industries, stylistic choices are critical. Here, we need to be careful: style cannot be reduced to aesthetics, and this is where the style alpha/style beta distinction can be helpful. For example, consider fashion (Godart & Galunic, 2019): in this industry, each producer (fashion house) has a specific style; some elements are permanent (the heritage of the house, or some iconic designs) and others are seasonal. This means that the ever-evolving style of a house—style alpha, based on trends—interacts with styles beta: for example, stylistic references or elements such as colors and their own brand characteristics. Stylistic choices can then lead to a variety of outcomes, including creativity (Godart et al., 2020) and status (Bothner et al., 2022). Relatedly, in the literary field, “stylometry” can help capture writers’ styles and field dynamics (O’Sullivan, 2022). Styles alpha are the origin of the structure of the whole field when they are taken together; some of these styles, when attached to famous writers, become styles beta and can be imitated (an intuition already present in Simmel’s ([1908] 1991) work, although according to him style was arguably limited to style beta).
The call for taking style more seriously has been substantial in some fields like creative industries (Godart, 2018). However, many sociologists have expressed similar interest in a renewed sociology of style, proposing quantitative and qualitative approaches to identify styles in data, from Hollywood movies (Burgdorf, 2024) to political behavior (McDonnell et al., 2023).
Although White is certainly not the first one to explore the concept of style—other prominent social scientists, including Simmel ([1908] 1991), Hebdige (1979), and Featherstone (1987), had recognized its merits—he is the first to embed style in a comprehensive conceptual framework, highlighting its intellectual and operational significance. Through this, White has transformed style from a fascinating, somewhat mysterious concept to a tool that sharpens the sociological eye.