Paradoxes of “Resonance”: Uses and Abuses of a Metaphor

Nicolas Rudas Neyra, Yale University

In the past decade, the concept of "resonance" has been revitalized in sociological debates, largely due to the work of Hartmut Rosa and McDonnell et all. These scholars have significantly refined the term, striving to transcend the ambiguities of its popular usage and establish it as a rigorous analytical category within scholarly discourse. The idea of “resonance” strikes at the core of cultural sociology, focusing on how social audiences “decode” culture (Hall, 1973). However, I argue that the way “resonance” is typically conceptualized has led to a disorienting trend. It is often treated as the key metaphor for cultural reception, collapsing some of the various micro-processes that unfold in this dynamic, specifically its moral and the emotional components. We need a clearer approach—one that narrows the scope of “resonance” and tempers its analytical ambitions. Put differently, we need a kind of Copernican shift: instead of placing “resonance” at the center of cultural-sociological inquiry, we must situate it within a larger constellation of interpretive processes, allowing it to play its proper role (important, but modest) in a wider cosmos of cultural reception. This paper critically examines the uses—and potential misuses—of the metaphor “resonance” in cultural sociology. Rather than providing an exhaustive or systematic review, it identifies key strengths and limitations of the concept, offering resources for its reformulation as a more effective tool for empirical research. The analysis begins with an examination of the “classical” approaches, particularly within social movement frame theory, before turning to contemporary reformulations—one by American sociologists Terence McDonnell, Christopher Bail and Iddo Tavory, and another by German sociologist Hartmut Rosa. Finally, the paper explores efforts to move beyond the concept, particularly among proponents of the Strong Program in Cultural Sociology.

See paper

 Presented in Session 167. Discourse and the Politics of Culture