| This study examines the process through which the word "multiculturalism" gained meaning and developed into a cultural conflict in four university English departments and the national press. A psychological model limits dominant explanations of cultural conflict, but this project offers a sociological method that documents the effects of symbol processing organizations that transform individual actions into public images.;Historical analysis finds that trends in higher education and multicultural movements intersected in the early 1980s. Vocationalization threatened all the humanities with losses in enrollments and legitimacy, but English literature suffered the most drastic reductions. Faced with the need for self-justification, English professors discovered that their traditional claims to cultural authority were less viable in the political environment created by multiculturalism.;Interviews with 76 English professors indicate that local work routines constrain the meanings multiculturalism has acquired inside each department to four jurisdictional arenas: text selection, teaching methods, cultural breadth, and literary politics. Professors in elite departments were more reluctant to take clear stands in favor of or opposition to multiculturalism than their non-elite counterparts.;Opinions only develop into open conflict under certain organizational conditions. Curriculum models, disciplinary boundaries, and departmental prestige work to protect individual autonomy and reduce opportunities for conflict. Elite departments operate under conditions of greater individual autonomy than non-elite departments where committees often choose common textbooks.;Local conditions explain variation in departmental conflict but indicate there is not enough widespread disagreement to produce national debate. English professors in elite universities claim complex opinions on multiculturalism in confidential interviews, but describe public arenas as contexts that require more simplified positions. Structural features of the organizations channeling information from local to national contexts shape complex opinions and local variation into a simplified image of conflict between two clear and irreconcilable forces: the valorization of traditional western culture and the celebration of cultural difference. The result is a highly scripted and rule-bound repetition of key issues in American public life and culture. Ritual analysis of the resulting battle reveals that its formal features deter the battles from becoming opportunities for social disruption. |
