Sloan School of Management Working Paper 4291-02 December 2002 Robust Identities or NonEntities ? Typecasting in the Feature Film Labor Market
Sloan School of Management Working Paper 4291-02 December 2002 Robust Identities or NonEntities ? Typecasting in the Feature Film Labor Market
复制标题
斯隆管理学院工作论文 4291-02 2002 年 12 月 稳健恒等式还是非实体？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
James von Rittmann
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ezra W. Zuckerman;Tai;Kalinda Ukanwa;James von Rittmann
我们提供了一个框架，用于调和关于社会和经济领域身份的两种看似不相容的主张：（a）复杂、多价的身份是有利的，因为它们提供了更大的灵活性； (b) 简单、通用的身份是有利的，因为它们有助于关键受众的解释。继福克纳（Faulkner，1983）之后，我们认为这些主张并不相互冲突，但它们适用于不同的背景。通用身份有助于获得持续参与社会舞台所需的认可。然而，随着一个人的地位越来越高，简单的“典型”身份所带来的局限性越来越与它的好处相抗衡。我们通过对故事片行业演员劳动力市场的分析来检验这些假设。对主要知情人的采访以及对互联网电影数据库综合数据的分析支持了所提出的理论框架。此外，证据支持假设的类型转换过程的显着性，即使存在基于潜在技能差异和社交网络的相关过程。我们的结果对于研究各种社会领域的身份形成、外部劳动力市场的分类边界，以及更普遍的市场动态中固有的参与者和位置之间的相互作用具有重要意义。稳健的身份还是非实体？ 1 经纪人/选角导演看到太多的简历和头像，无法立即在他的脑海中对这个人进行分类。老实说：我并没有真正考虑过这个问题。你适合吗？美好的。不是？美好的。人们被交易和游行。 —好莱坞人才经纪人简介 拥有简单的身份好还是更复杂的身份好？ “强有力的行动”这一颇具影响力的概念表明，假设一个明确的身份是有问题的，因为它降低了演员的行动自由度（Padgett and Ansell 1993；参见 Leifer 1988、1991；Stark 1996）。正如科西莫·德梅迪奇在帕吉特和安塞尔的叙述（1993：1262-1265）中所体现的那样，具有多重身份的演员，因为他们可能与多个角色或群体相关联，因此在回应互动者时保持灵活性，而互动者的更狭义的身份会导致他们对有限的行动路线做出承诺。这个想法的早期版本可以在角色理论和象征互动主义中找到。例如，戈夫曼引入了角色距离的概念来描述角色占有者如何证明她的身份没有完全封装在角色中（Goffman 1961）。类似地，标签理论（例如，Becker 1973）基于一种自我实现的预言，即对个人应用（负面）身份标签会限制他或她以与该归因不一致的方式行事的能力。相反，成功地避免标签意味着一个人可能会被其他（积极评价的）角色所接受。简单的身份会给未来的行动方案带来限制，而复杂的身份则需要更大的灵活性，因此似乎更可取。但这一结论与分析市场和组织领域秩序来源的理论背道而驰。正如 Zuckerman 指出的（1999：1403），新制度主义（Meyer 和 Rowan 1977；DiMaggio 和 Powell 1983；Scott 2001）、White 的市场模型（White 2002）和营销理论（例如，Bronnenberg 和 Vanhonacker 1996；Urban、Hulland 和 Weinberg）等不同观点的共同之处1993）是这样的假设，即行为者面临着表现出对形式、角色的坚持的压力，1多价性是有益的这一想法也与网络和交换理论传统中的主题有关，即经纪业务（即能够在不同的选区之间架起桥梁）提供了谈判杠杆（例如，Burt 1980；1982；1992；Cook，Emerson，Gillmore和Yamagishi） 1983；普费弗和萨兰奇克，1978）。稳健的身份还是非实体？ 2 或指导估值的类别。这些理论中的每一个都意味着，一个违背主流社会认知框架的演员有可能在相关观众中播下混乱的种子，从而以不关注或彻底拒绝的形式产生社会惩罚（Zuckerman 1999；另见 Polos、Hannan 和 Carroll 2002）。结果，行动者被迫以一种可能纯粹是象征性的方式顺从（Meyer and Rowan 1977），但也可能包括实质性的改变（例如，Zuckerman 2000）。通过尝试扩大自己的身份以涵盖多种不同的角色，演员可能会面临被贬低甚至被拒绝的风险。因此，最好假设一个简单的、通用的
We provide a framework for reconciling two seemingly incompatible claims regarding identity in social and economic arenas: (a) that complex, multivalent identities are advantageous because they afford greater flexibility; and (b) that simple, generic identities are advantageous because they facilitate interpretation by key audiences. Following Faulkner (1983), we argue that these claims do not conflict with one another but that they apply to different contexts. A generic identity is helpful in gaining the recognition necessary for sustained participation in a social arena. However, as one becomes better established, the limitations entailed by a simple, “typecast” identity increasingly rival the benefits. We test these hypotheses in an analysis of the labor market for actors in the feature film industry. Interviews with key informants and analysis of comprehensive data from the Internet Movie Database support the proposed theoretical framework. In addition, the evidence supports the salience of the hypothesized typecasting processes even in the presence of related processes based on underlying skill differences and social networks. Our results have important implications for research on identity formation in various social arenas, categorical boundaries in external labor markets, and more generally, the interplay between actor and position inherent in market dynamics. Robust Identities or Non-Entities? 1 An agent/casting director sees too many resumes and headshots to avoid immediately classifying the person in his mind. I’ll be honest: there is no real thought going into this. Do you fit? Fine. Not? Fine. People are traded and paraded. —Hollywood talent agent Introduction Is it better to have a simple identity or one that is more complex? The influential notion of “robust action” suggests that assuming a well-defined identity is problematic because it lowers an actor’s freedom of action (Padgett and Ansell 1993; cf., Leifer 1988, 1991; Stark 1996). As personified by Cosimo DeMedici in Padgett and Ansell’s account (1993: 1262-1265), actors who have multivocal identities, in that they could potentially be associated with multiple roles or groups, retain flexibility in responding to interactants whose more narrowly defined identities induce commitments to restricted lines of action. Earlier versions of this idea may be found in role theory and symbolic interactionism. For example, Goffman introduced the concept of role distance to describe how a role occupant may demonstrate that her identity is not fully encapsulated in the role (Goffman 1961). Similarly, labeling theory (e.g., Becker 1973) is predicated on a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the application of an (negative) identity tag to an individual restricts his or her ability to act in a way that is inconsistent with that attribution. Conversely, successful avoidance of a label means that one may potentially be accepted in other (positively valued) roles. Whereas simple identities introduce constraints on future courses of action, complex identities entail greater flexibility and therefore seem preferable. But this conclusion runs counter to theories that analyze the sources of order in markets and organizational fields. As Zuckerman points out (1999: 1403), common to such different perspectives as neoinstitutionalism (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Scott 2001), White’s market model (White 2002), and marketing theory (e.g., Bronnenberg and Vanhonacker 1996; Urban, Hulland, and Weinberg 1993) is the assumption that actors face pressure to demonstrate adherence to the forms, roles, 1 The idea that multivalence is beneficial is also related to the theme in the network and exchange-theoretic traditions that brokerage-i.e., being able to bridge between divergent constituencies-provides negotiating leverage (e.g., Burt 1980; 1982; 1992; Cook, Emerson, Gillmore, and Yamagishi 1983; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Robust Identities or Non-Entities? 2 or categories that guide valuation. Each of these theories implies that an actor who defies prevailing socio-cognitive frames risks sowing confusion among relevant audiences, thereby producing social penalties in the form of disattention or outright rejection (Zuckerman 1999; see also Polos, Hannan, and Carroll 2002). As a result, actors are pressured to conform in a way that may be purely symbolic (Meyer and Rowan 1977) but may include substantive change as well (e.g., Zuckerman 2000). By trying to broaden their identity to include multiple and diverse roles, actors thus risk being devalued and even rejected. As such, it may be preferable to assume a simple, generic