AMPAS: The Ceremony as a Code Machine

Methodological Framework

Research objective: to trace the history of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) as a sequence of cultural code shifts: to establish when and why each code arose, how the organization transmitted it to the industry and the audience, whether re-fusion occurred, and what destroyed it.

Unit of analysis: the organization's binary code and its execution through ceremonial ritual. AMPAS is examined not as a corporation or a regulator but as a cultural institution that produces the definition of the sacred for the entire film industry. Economic data (box-office bump, broadcast ratings) are used as verifiable indicators of the state of re-fusion. A Gramscian analysis of institutional mechanisms of capture and retention is presented in the companion report [AMPAS: How a Private Club Became Hollywood's Regulator]; in this text, those data are referenced where necessary for understanding the sociological dynamics.

Conceptual Apparatus

Binary codes (Alexander): culture divides the world into sacred and profane poles. The pair is emotionally and morally charged; it is through this pair that participants interpret everything around them.

Performance (Alexander): a social action whose outcome depends not on the quality of its content but on whether the audience believed the performer genuinely believed in what was being performed.

Ritual (Alexander): a recurring performance that has become institutionalized. The audience knows what will happen, knows its role, knows how to respond. Participation in the ritual is itself an act of belonging to the code.

Re-fusion (Alexander): the moment when the boundary between performer and audience dissolves: the viewer ceases to be an observer and becomes a participant, emotionally and symbolically.

De-fusion (Alexander): the moment when the boundary is restored: the audience is outside again, seeing the seams and the construction.

Cultural Diamond (Griswold): four poles through which any cultural object exists: creator, object, receiver, social world. De-fusion is always a rupture along a specific axis.

Habitus (Bourdieu): a system of perception and action acquired through socialization, operating automatically; explains why people from the same professional milieu make similar decisions without explicit coordination.

Settled culture (Swidler): habitus works, nobody notices it, the question "why do we do it this way" never arises.

Unsettled culture (Swidler): habitus is broken or under threat; manifestos, declarations, and reforms appear. Explicitly regulated ideology is always a signal of instability.

Cultural trauma claim (Alexander & Eyerman): the successful appropriation of someone else's real pain as a source of one's own moral authority.

Framing (Snow & Benford): a ready-made interpretation answering: who is to blame, what must be done, and why action is needed now.

Boundary work (Lamont): the mechanism of drawing boundaries: who is inside, who is outside, along which axes (moral, cultural, socioeconomic).

Carrier groups (Alexander & Eyerman): specific social groups that carry and transmit the narrative within an institution.

Iconic consciousness (Alexander): a state in which the form and meaning of a cultural object merge to such a degree that the object no longer needs context to convey its meaning.

Civil sphere (Alexander): an autonomous sphere with its own binary code: democratic/antidemocratic, open/secretive, autonomous/dependent. Presence within it grants an institution legitimacy beyond the cultural field.

Sources

Primary: AMPAS charter and press releases (oscars.org), ceremony history, public statements by leadership. For de-fusion verification: Nielsen TV ratings, Box Office Mojo, IRS Form 990, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline. For analysis of institutional mechanisms (RAISE, electoral reform, financial model), see the companion report [AMPAS: How a Private Club Became Hollywood's Regulator]. Demographic data: Los Angeles Times (2012 study), AMPAS Annual Reports.

Known Limitations

The RAISE form is confidential: there is no direct verification of specific films' compliance. Internal Board of Governors deliberations are not published. Correlation between broadcast ratings and code changes is not causation: the multifactorial nature of audience decline (TV market fragmentation, streaming, the pandemic) is accounted for. Earlier periods (1929-2000) are described in less detail owing to limited primary sources. The term "code" is used as a synonym for "binary code" per Alexander.

I. The Original Code: Industry Self-Governance (1927-~2000)

The Founding as an Anti-Union Performance

On January 11, 1927, Louis B. Mayer, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), invited 36 people from the film industry to a banquet at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles [a]. The purpose Mayer stated to his guests was to create an organization capable of settling labor disputes without unions and improving the industry's public image [b]. Articles of incorporation were filed on May 4, 1927. The first official meeting took place on May 6. Douglas Fairbanks, a star of silent cinema, was elected the first president [c].

The Academy's mission, published on June 20, 1927, listed seven objectives: improving the artistic quality of cinema, unifying professional branches, and advancing technology. Awarding merit appeared in the latter portion of the fifth objective out of seven [d]. The ceremony was conceived as an instrument of control, not as an end in itself. Mayer stated the logic explicitly: "I found that the best way to handle [filmmakers] was to hang medals all over them. If I got them cups and awards they'd kill themselves to produce what I wanted. That's why the Academy Award was created" [e].

The Binary Code

The binary code of the first period: professional excellence / external interference.

The sacred was declared to be industry merit, craftsmanship as an objectively measurable quality recognized by experts from within the industry. The profane was commercial exploitation without standards, government and public interference, union conflict. Outside observers (censors, politicians, activists) lacked the competence to judge. The sacred was defined by professionals for professionals.

The mission explicitly excluded economic, labor, and political questions from the Academy's purview [d]. This is not the absence of a position but a position: professional excellence exists apart from money and politics. This very assertion would become an invisible habitus for the next seventy years.

SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) Culture

By the 1940s, the code had become invisible. The Academy had exited direct participation in labor disputes (the Conciliations Committee was disbanded in 1937) [f] and focused on what would remain its primary performance: the annual ceremony. Nobody asked why the Oscar was considered the supreme award. It was taken as given. SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture in its pure form: the question "on what grounds does a private club determine what constitutes the best film?" is not asked, because the answer appears self-evident.

The Ritual

AMPAS is a ceremonial institution in the purest sense: the entire code is performed through a single recurring ritual. This distinguishes AMPAS from Disney (the release ritual) and Netflix (the distributed digital ritual). The ceremony takes place once a year, at a fixed location (Dolby Theatre, formerly Kodak Theatre, formerly various venues), with a fixed structure (red carpet, categories, envelope, speech, Best Picture finale).

The first ceremony on May 16, 1929, lasted 15 minutes and drew 270 attendees. A ticket cost $5. Winners had been announced three months in advance [e]. Radio broadcast began with the second ceremony (1930), television with 1953. By the 1990s, 40-55 million people in the United States alone watched the ceremony. The ritual produced maximum re-fusion: audiences experienced the announcement of the winner as an event personally relevant to them.

The ritual serves four functions simultaneously. It establishes hierarchy (who is the best). It allocates resources (a box-office bump of $5-30 million [18]). It reproduces the community (membership, the red carpet, speeches). It transmits the code to the audience (what is sacred in cinema). No other institution in the industry performs all four functions through a single performance.

Quality Arbiters

The boundary workMechanism of drawing boundaries: who is inside, who is outside, along which axes (Lamont) of the first period encompassed all three of Lamont's axes simultaneously. Along the moral axis, merit was defined through demonstrated professional excellence; anyone who produced "merely a commercial product" stood outside the sacred. Along the cultural axis, invitation-only membership ensured that only competent people voted; outsiders lacked the expertise required for evaluation. Along the socioeconomic axis, membership was closed but was declared a meritocracy of professionals rather than a club of the privileged.

The arbiters of the sacred are Academy members themselves: 230 at the founding, approximately 5,765 in 2012. The Los Angeles Times established the demographic profile of the arbiters in 2012: 94% white, 77% male, median age 62 [1]. This is not a conspiracy or ill intent: it is habitus. A professional community reproduced itself through networks formed in a particular era and did not ask questions about its own composition. SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture does not notice its own boundaries.

Carrier GroupsSocial groups that carry and transmit the narrative within an institution (Alexander & Eyerman)

The code of the first period was transmitted by specific groups. At the founding, these were studio bosses (Mayer, Schenck, Lasky, Warner) who created the organization and controlled invitations. After 1937, when the Academy exited labor disputes, the code carriers became 19 professional branches: actors, directors, writers, cinematographers, editors, and so on. Each branch voted on nominees in its own category; all together voted for Best Picture. The mechanism of reproduction was simple: current members invited new ones from their own professional networks. This meant carrier groupsSocial groups that carry and transmit the narrative within an institution (Alexander & Eyerman) self-reproduced through acquaintance rather than formalized recruitment. This configuration explains the demographic inertia: the code was transmitted through networks that were structurally closed.

Through the Cultural DiamondFour poles of a cultural object: creator, object, receiver, social world (Griswold)

During the settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture period, all four axes formally aligned. The creator (AMPAS members) believed the code because they considered professional excellence an objective criterion. The object (the ceremony) embodied the code through a ritual perceived as authentic. The receiver (the audience) confirmed re-fusion through mass viewership. The social world (postwar America, then a globalizing Hollywood) provided resonant ground for the code. A crack existed but was invisible: the composition of the arbiters did not reflect the composition of the audience. So long as the audience did not ask this question, the crack remained a habitual blind spot.

Iconic ConsciousnessFusion of form and meaning: the object carries meaning without context (Alexander)

The Oscar statuette achieved full iconic status in Alexander's sense. A golden figure holding a sword, standing on a reel of film, carries meaning without context. Designed by MGM art director Cedric Gibbons (1927), sculpted by George Maitland Stanley: the form has not changed in ninety-seven years [g]. The phrase "won an Oscar" is understood without explanation on every continent. This is a rare case in which a physical object became the icon of an entire industry rather than of a specific film or character. The statuette's iconic status shielded the institution from the consequences of de-fusion: even as the ceremony lost its audience, the Oscar as a symbol continued to carry meaning.

The Civil SphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander)

During the settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture period, AMPAS occupied a distinctive place in the civil sphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander). The ceremony functioned as an annual performance of American democratic culture: free creators recognized by peers, not by the state. This was a settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) presence: nobody declared that the Oscar embodied democratic values, but the logic of "peer recognition without state intervention" implicitly appealed to the civil code of autonomy and openness.

II. The Crack: SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) Code Becomes Visible (2015-2016)

The Event

On January 15, 2015, activist April Reign created the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite after the nominations were announced, in which all 20 acting slots went to white performers [2]. A year later, history repeated. Director Spike Lee and actress Jada Pinkett Smith announced a boycott. The hashtag reached 11 million mentions within 48 hours [3].

#OscarsSoWhite made an invisible structure visible. The settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) code of "professional excellence" contained an implicit assumption: the default professional is a white man of middle or advanced age. This was not a political decision. It was habitus, reproduced through professional networks, through membership invitations, through the voting of people who vote for those they know. When 94% of voters belong to a single demographic group [1], the outcome is predictable without any ill intent.

UnsettledHabitus broken or threatened; manifestos and declarations signal instability (Swidler) Culture

Per Swidler, when habitus becomes visible, settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture ends. #OscarsSoWhite translated invisible habitus into a public question: "On what grounds does a particular group of people decide what is sacred?" The very fact that this question was asked and heard signified the end of the settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) period. The question "why do we do it this way?" was impossible in settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture. Now it became central.

Cultural Trauma ClaimAppropriation of someone else's real pain as a source of one's own moral authority (Alexander & Eyerman)

#OscarsSoWhite deployed the mechanism of a cultural trauma claimAppropriation of someone else's real pain as a source of one's own moral authority (Alexander & Eyerman): the invisibility of non-white actors and directors in the nominations was reframed as a collective trauma demanding an institutional response. The trauma was real (systemic exclusion), but its articulation in the form of a cultural trauma claimAppropriation of someone else's real pain as a source of one's own moral authority (Alexander & Eyerman) created a specific dynamic: an institution accepting the claim must acknowledge complicity in inflicting harm and propose a compensatory mechanism.

FramingA ready-made interpretation: who is to blame, what to do, why act now (Snow & Benford)

#OscarsSoWhite constituted a frame in the precise sense of Snow & Benford. The blame lay not with a specific person or a specific decision but with the composition of the voters: 94% white arbiters cannot objectively evaluate what lies beyond their experience. The solution followed from the diagnosis: change the composition, expand membership, recruit women, non-white professionals, international members. The motivation was framed as a question of legitimacy: a Hollywood that speaks on behalf of the entire world cannot remain a closed club of a single demographic group.

The Civil SphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander)

#OscarsSoWhite shifted the conversation from the aesthetic register to the civic: the question was not about the quality of films but about who has a voice in public culture. AMPAS became a target precisely because the ceremony claimed a universal definition of the best. The universality declared by an institution in which 94% of the arbiters belong to a single group was re-read as exclusion.

Carrier GroupsSocial groups that carry and transmit the narrative within an institution (Alexander & Eyerman)

The #OscarsSoWhite narrative was carried by specific groups. April Reign created the hashtag and led the discussion on Twitter. Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett Smith moved it from social media into the industry through a public boycott. Critics and journalists (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Variety) legitimized the question through investigations of the Academy's composition. Activist organizations (Color of Change, NAACP) embedded it in the broader narrative of systemic racism. Each group transmitted the same frame but addressed different audiences: Twitter activists addressed the public, Lee and Pinkett Smith addressed the industry, journalists addressed institutions. The convergence of pressures across all channels simultaneously explains the speed of AMPAS's response: seven days from the peak to a unanimous decision.

Boundary WorkMechanism of drawing boundaries: who is inside, who is outside, along which axes (Lamont)

#OscarsSoWhite attacked all three of Lamont's axes simultaneously. Along the moral axis, "professional excellence" was reclassified from a neutral standard into a form of exclusion. Along the cultural axis, the competence of the arbiters was called into question: 94% white experts cannot define the sacred for a global audience. Along the socioeconomic axis, invitation-only membership was re-read as the reproduction of privilege rather than the selection of the best. The "inside/outside" boundary became visible and contested.

Through the Cultural DiamondFour poles of a cultural object: creator, object, receiver, social world (Griswold)

The crack ran along the receiver-social world axis. The audience (receiver) continued to watch the ceremony, but part of the social world (public discourse, media, activist organizations) ceased to accept the ritual as authentic. Ratings had not yet collapsed (2015: 37.3 million, 2016: 34.4 million) [11], but the trend had begun. The creator-object axis remained formally intact: the Board of Governors continued to manage the ceremony under the old rules. The crack was visible only from outside, through public pressure; from within the organization, de-fusion had not yet been registered.

Iconic ConsciousnessFusion of form and meaning: the object carries meaning without context (Alexander)

The statuette's iconic status did not collapse during the crack but came under a new type of pressure. The Oscar ceased to be a neutral symbol of excellence; the question "whose Oscar?" became public for the first time.

III. The Attempted New Code: Representation as the Sacred (2016-2024)

Electoral Reform: Academy Aperture 2020

On January 22, 2016, the Board of Governors unanimously adopted the Academy Aperture 2020 program: doubling the number of women and non-white Academy members by 2020 [4]. The reform arrived seven days after the #OscarsSoWhite peak. The decision was unanimous; deliberation records are not published.

In June 2016, the Academy invited a record class of new members for the first time: 46% women and 41% non-white [5]. By 2021, membership had grown from 6,261 to 9,487 (+51.5%), the white share declining from approximately 94% to approximately 81% [6]. By 2024, membership reached approximately 9,905; by 2025 it exceeded 11,000. This is an electorate replacement: not a change in voting rules but a change in the composition of the voters.

Rules Reform: The RAISE Standards

On May 25, 2020, African American George Floyd was killed during a police intervention; the death triggered nationwide protests. In June 2020, AMPAS announced Academy Aperture 2025 with a mandate to develop eligibility standards [7]. In September 2020, approximately 16 weeks later, the RAISE standards (Representation and Inclusion Standards for Equitable Storytelling) were published [8].

The sequence is critical. The composition of the voters changed before the rules did. The governors who developed RAISE were elected by the already-reformed electorate. The standards were developed by governor DeVon Franklin and Paramount chairman Jim Gianopulos. The template was taken from the British Film Institute's (BFI) Diversity Standards, introduced in 2016 [8]. During the transition period, at the 94th (2022) and 95th (2023) ceremonies, submission of the RAISE form was mandatory but compliance was not. From the 96th ceremony (2024), RAISE became mandatory for Best Picture nomination.

Standards A and B address on-screen content and the creative team. Standards C and D address the studio's workforce policies. A studio fulfilling C+D formally complies with RAISE without any changes to casting or narrative. This is a design feature that will become critical in the scenario analysis in Section V.

The Binary Code of the New Period

The new code: representation / systemic exclusion.

The sacred became inclusion, equitable storytelling, voices previously excluded from the canon. The profane was declared to be systemic exclusion, "default" privilege, the reproduction of a closed club.

This is a different code, not an expansion of the former one. The old code asserted that professional excellence was objective and determined by experts. The new code asserted that the definition of excellence depends on who is defining it, and that the composition of the arbiters is not neutral but carries a structure requiring correction.

Carrier GroupsSocial groups that carry and transmit the narrative within an institution (Alexander & Eyerman)

The new code was propagated through several specific groups. External activist organizations (GLAAD, HRC, Color of Change) legitimized demands and set standards. Within the Academy, new members invited through Academy Aperture constituted a growing share of the electorate. The Equity and Inclusion Committee, chaired first by producer and governor DeVon Franklin, then by actor and governor Lou Diamond Phillips, developed and oversaw the standards. The Board of Governors, elected by the reformed membership, provided the institutional framework.

CEO Dawn Hudson (2011-2022) steered the organization through both reform phases. CEO Bill Kramer (from July 2022) inherited the system and expanded it, adding global membership expansion and a $500 million fundraising campaign [9]. Academy president from 2022 to 2024 was producer Janet Yang (three terms); from 2025, producer Lynette Howell Taylor.

Boundary WorkMechanism of drawing boundaries: who is inside, who is outside, along which axes (Lamont): Changing the Arbiters

The new code produced a shift along all three of Lamont's axes simultaneously. The definition of moral merit changed: the worthy became one who asks "who is excluded?" while the unworthy became one who reproduces "invisible default privilege." The concept of professional competence was redefined: previously only an industry professional could vote; now the voter must not only be a professional but also be part of a demographically representative body. External arbiters (GLAAD Studio Responsibility Index, HRC Corporate Equality Index, BFI Diversity Standards) gained real leverage: RAISE used BFI as its template [8]. The arbiters shifted from a closed professional field to external activist and financial institutions.

Cultural Trauma ClaimAppropriation of someone else's real pain as a source of one's own moral authority (Alexander & Eyerman): George Floyd and RAISE

The link between Floyd's death (May 25, 2020) and the publication of RAISE (September 2020) is not chronologically accidental. AMPAS embedded its reform in the narrative of racial trauma. Standards developed in 16 weeks addressed a task discussed for years. The trauma provided a window for institutional action that would have been impossible without it. This is a classic mechanism per Alexander & Eyerman: an institution appropriates collective trauma as a source of legitimacy for its own reforms.

Through the Cultural DiamondFour poles of a cultural object: creator, object, receiver, social world (Griswold)

Along the creator-object axis, the reformers (the new electorate, the Board of Governors) believed the code because they had joined the organization precisely for it. The object (the ceremony, the RAISE standards) embodied the code through institutional design. This axis remained intact.

The crack began along the object-receiver axis. The ceremony addressed two audiences: the industrial (members, studios, campaigns) and the mass (television viewers). The industrial audience adapted: RAISE forms were submitted, standards were factored into the production cycle. The mass audience continued to leave.

Along the receiver-social world axis, the ceremony's audience shrank from 43.7 million (2014) to 10.4 million (2021) [11]. Causation is multiple: TV market fragmentation, the pandemic, streaming. But the pattern is stable: the annual ritual ceased to be an event for a significant portion of the former audience.

The Ritual Under the New Code

The ceremony preserved its form (red carpet, envelopes, speeches, Best Picture finale) but its content changed. In Memoriam expanded, political statements from the stage became the norm, the composition of hosts and presenters was diversified. The 2020 ceremony (no host) and 2021 ceremony (Union Station, limited audience due to the pandemic) disrupted the physical form of the ritual. The recovery of 2022-2026 restored the form but not the audience.

RAISE, like Netflix's inclusion lens, embedded the code in conditions of production--that is, in requirements preceding the film's presentation to voters. The principle is the same, but the structure of invisibility differs. Disney made the code visible in the product itself: the viewer saw representation on screen. Netflix concealed the mechanism itself: the inclusion lens was never officially announced, and the audience did not know of its existence. AMPAS did the opposite: the mechanism (RAISE standards) was published, but the results are confidential. The ceremony does not announce by which criteria a film achieved compliance. The viewer does not see the code in the ritual; the viewer sees only the list of nominees. Disney had nothing to hide. Netflix hid the tool. AMPAS hid the results of the tool's operation. This generates a specific vulnerability: the standards are public and attackable, but their effect is unverifiable.

SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) or UnsettledHabitus broken or threatened; manifestos and declarations signal instability (Swidler)

The third period is entirely unsettled.Habitus broken or threatened; manifestos and declarations signal instability (Swidler) Every action by AMPAS during this period was accompanied by public justification: why Academy Aperture, why RAISE, why expand membership. SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture does not need announcements. AMPAS from 2016 to 2024 announced every step. The declarative nature of the reforms serves as a precise marker of the unsettledHabitus broken or threatened; manifestos and declarations signal instability (Swidler) period per Swidler.

FramingA ready-made interpretation: who is to blame, what to do, why act now (Snow & Benford) the New Code

The frame of the new code per Snow & Benford differed from the #OscarsSoWhite frame, though it grew from it. The problem was formulated not through specific nominations but through structure: if the composition of the voters does not reflect the composition of the industry and the audience, the result is systemically distorted. The solution required changing both composition (Academy Aperture) and rules (RAISE), because one without the other is insufficient: composition without rules yields soft shifts; rules without composition yield resistance. The motivation was framed in professional, not ideological, language. CEO Kramer in 2023 put it this way: "we don't want to legislate art" [9]. RAISE was positioned as a tool for expanding the cinematic field, not as a restriction. This framingA ready-made interpretation: who is to blame, what to do, why act now (Snow & Benford) made RAISE less vulnerable than open quotas.

Iconic ConsciousnessFusion of form and meaning: the object carries meaning without context (Alexander)

The splitting of the statuette's meaning, which began in the second period, deepened. For part of the audience, the Oscar came to mean "recognition within a particular code"; for another part, its meaning remained unchanged. A symbol that means different things to different people functions as long as all consider it significant.

The Civil SphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander)

The new code moved AMPAS from a settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) presence in the civil sphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander) to active positioning. The settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) code of the first period appealed to autonomy (peer recognition without state intervention). The new code appeals to inclusion: a democratic society must be represented in its cultural institutions. Both appeal to the civil sphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander) but through different poles of the binary code: autonomous/dependent versus open/closed. The conflict between them reproduces the internal tension of the civil sphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander) per Alexander: both poles claim legitimacy, and resolving the conflict in favor of one without losing the other is impossible.

IV. De-fusion: The Ceremony Loses Its Audience

Ratings as a Publicly Verifiable Indicator

The decline from 43.7 to 17.9 million over twelve years amounts to 59% [11]. The partial recovery after 2021 (10.4 to 19.7) did not compensate for the long-term trend. The 2026 ceremony was watched by fewer people than any broadcast from 2018 or earlier.

De-fusion did not occur in a single moment. It developed in parallel with the reforms and has multiple causes. TV market fragmentation hit all ceremonial broadcasts: the Grammys in 2026 lost approximately 6% of their audience, the Golden Globes approximately 6%, the Oscars approximately 9% [13]. All three institutions declined simultaneously, pointing to format as a common factor. But the Oscars declined faster, leaving space for institution-specific explanations, including the code change. Streaming's share of total consumption reached 44.8% by June 2025, exceeding broadcast and cable combined [14]. 53% of American adults had not been to a cinema in the past year [15]. The audience does not see the nominated films and therefore has no interest in the ceremony.

Two Ceremonies: The Anatomy of Re-fusion and Its Collapse

What exactly stopped working is visible when two ceremonies are compared through Alexander's six elements of performance: script, actor, audience, means of symbolic production, mise-en-scene, and social power.

The 86th ceremony (March 2, 2014, 43.7 million viewers) [11]. Host Ellen DeGeneres walks into the audience and takes a selfie with Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence, and several other stars. The photo is posted on Twitter. Within an hour it becomes the most retweeted image in history (3.4 million retweets by the end of the evening) [16]. The television audience sees stars behaving like ordinary people, crowding together for a photograph. The boundary between the hall and the viewer dissolves: the viewer at home retweets the same photo, participating in the same ritual. All six elements of performance aligned. The script (awards ceremony) was disrupted by improvisation, and the disruption itself produced authenticity. The actor (DeGeneres) was perceived as a person, not as a host. The audience (43.7 million + Twitter) was simultaneously viewer and participant. The means of symbolic production (camera, stage, envelope) receded behind a phone. The mise-en-scene (the formal hall) was ritually disrupted by a mundane gesture. The Academy's social power that evening coincided with Twitter's power: each confirmed the other. This is re-fusion at its maximum.

The 93rd ceremony (April 25, 2021, 10.4 million viewers) [11]. The venue was moved from the Dolby Theatre to the Union Station railway terminal because of the pandemic. The hall is half-empty: only nominees and their guests are present. There is no host. The ceremony is structured as a series of monologues. The television audience watches speeches in an empty space. The script is preserved (envelope, speech, applause), but the actor is absent (no host, no improvisation). The audience is divided by physical absence: the viewer behind the screen observes a ritual with no place for their participation. The means of symbolic production (a camera in an empty hall) expose the construction. The mise-en-scene (a train station instead of a theater) disrupts the familiar geography of the sacred. The Academy's social power is not confirmed by the audience: 10.4 million means that 33 million people who had watched seven years earlier decided this event no longer concerned them. Not a single element produced fusion. The ritual was performed; re-fusion did not occur. Methodologically important: RAISE was not yet mandatory in 2021. The de-fusion of 2021 is explained by the collapse of the performance, not by the code change.

Rupture Along the Object-Receiver Axis

This is a de-fusion of a specific type: the ceremony preserved its internal industrial function but lost its mass audience. The ritual continues to be performed. Envelopes are opened. Speeches are given. The box-office bump exists. But a portion of viewers who once experienced the ceremony as a personal event has exited the ritual.

Through the Cultural DiamondFour poles of a cultural object: creator, object, receiver, social world (Griswold), the receiver (mass audience) ceased to confirm re-fusion. The object (the ceremony) continues to exist, but its audience has contracted by 59%. This is not rejection of the code. It is indifference, which is more dangerous than rejection: a quiet departure without conflict.

Rupture Along the Creator-Social World Axis

RAISE and Academy Aperture provoked a competing frame. Director Ridley Scott, actor Rob Lowe, and television host Bill Maher publicly criticized the standards. Conservative media positioned RAISE as "quotas" restricting authors' freedom. Progressive media positioned criticism of the standards as a defense of privilege.

The critics formulated their own frame: AMPAS is substituting ideological control for professional excellence. The solution was to repeal the standards and return to a "pure" professional criterion. The motivation appealed to the defense of artistic freedom against corporate activism.

AMPAS did not offer a stable counter-frame. CEO Bill Kramer formulated his position cautiously: "We don't want to legislate art. We want filmmakers to continue making the films they want to make" [9]. This is a compromise formulation that does not answer either of the competing frames directly.

Counterexample: Oppenheimer and Sinners

Audience de-fusion does not mean ritual de-fusion. The 2024 ceremony (the first year of mandatory RAISE) culminated in the victory of Oppenheimer ($952 million worldwide gross). The 2026 ceremony saw 16 nominations for Sinners, directed by Ryan Coogler (worldwide gross $369 million; a record number of nominations in Academy history), and the Best Picture win of One Battle After Another, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson [12].

Both facts disprove the formula "new code = commercial failure" or "new code = exclusion of auteur cinema." RAISE did not block a blockbuster (Oppenheimer), an auteur film (One Battle After Another), or a commercially successful film about African American culture (Sinners). The RAISE form is confidential, and it is publicly unknown through which standards (A, B, C, or D) each film achieved compliance.

Boundary WorkMechanism of drawing boundaries: who is inside, who is outside, along which axes (Lamont) During De-fusion

De-fusion altered the configuration of boundaries per Lamont. Along the moral axis, two competing definitions of "the worthy" coexist: for RAISE supporters, the worthy is one who expands representation; for critics, the worthy is one who made the best film regardless of composition. Neither side can dismiss the other's claim. Along the cultural axis, the competence of the arbiters is contested from both sides: critics challenge the competence of the new electorate ("invited for demographics"), while supporters challenge the legitimacy of the old ("94% white cannot define the sacred"). Along the socioeconomic axis, the confidentiality of RAISE relieves pressure on specific studios but creates a strategic void in which neither side can verify its claims.

Carrier GroupsSocial groups that carry and transmit the narrative within an institution (Alexander & Eyerman) During De-fusion

The new code was transmitted by the Equity and Inclusion Committee (chaired by DeVon Franklin until 2024, by Lou Diamond Phillips from 2025), CEO Bill Kramer, international Academy members (25% of the membership), and new governors elected by the expanded electorate.

The counter-narrative was carried by director Ridley Scott, actor Rob Lowe, television host Bill Maher, conservative media (Fox News, Daily Wire), and a portion of industry veterans who do not participate in public debate but express dissatisfaction through professional channels.

The dynamic between the groups is asymmetric. Code carriers operated through institutional mechanisms: committees, the electorate, standards. Their power is embedded in procedure and does not depend on public support. Counter-narrative carriers operated through public statements and media: their power depends on the audience but does not influence procedure directly. Critics can change the perception of the ceremony but cannot change RAISE rules because they are not part of the electorate that adopted those rules. The institutional group controls procedure; the public group controls the frame. The competition continues along different channels, and neither side can prevail on the other's territory.

Iconic ConsciousnessFusion of form and meaning: the object carries meaning without context (Alexander)

The statuette retains global recognizability: the golden figure is identified without context on every continent. But de-fusion produced a specific effect: the Oscar became a symbol whose meaning is disputed. When director Ryan Coogler wins for Sinners and director Paul Thomas Anderson for One Battle After Another, the statuette continues to function as a symbol of excellence. When CODA ($1 million in theatrical gross) [17] wins, part of the audience reads this as confirmation that the symbol has detached from reality. Iconic consciousnessFusion of form and meaning: the object carries meaning without context (Alexander) is not destroyed: it is split. Form and meaning, fused during the settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) period, now operate differently for different audiences. This split is stable as long as all sides consider the symbol significant. The danger arises if one side ceases to consider the statuette significant at all: then the split transitions into erosion.

The Civil SphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander)

The competing frames reproduce a conflict within the civil sphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander). The new code appeals to inclusion as a democratic value. Critics appeal to autonomy: a private club has the right to set any criteria without external pressure. Both arguments work within the civil code per Alexander. AMPAS has found itself in a position where any choice is interpreted by one side as antidemocratic.

V. The Present: An UnsettledHabitus broken or threatened; manifestos and declarations signal instability (Swidler) Period with Three Scenarios

The State of the Code

The representation code is institutionalized: RAISE is mandatory, the electorate is expanded, the Equity and Inclusion Committee operates, global expansion continues (25% of the 11,000 members are outside the United States [9]). This is not a declarative code; it is embedded in the nomination procedure--that is, in conditions of production at a stage preceding the film's presentation to voters.

Simultaneously, external pressure for rollback is active. Executive orders EO 14151 and EO 14173 (January 2025) created a political context in which DEI formulations become a legal risk. AMPAS, as a 501(c)(6) nonprofit without government funding or stock exchange listing, formally falls outside the orders' scope. But the studios submitting the RAISE form do fall within it. This creates a situation in which the institution (AMPAS) preserves the standards while the entities obligated to fulfill them (studios) are under pressure to abandon them.

Quality Arbiters: YouTube as a Change of Venue

AMPAS has signed a contract with YouTube for ceremony broadcast beginning in 2029 (the 101st ceremony and beyond, through at least 2033) [10]. ABC retains rights through 2028. The shift to YouTube means a free global broadcast: the potential audience expands from tens of millions of American TV viewers to a global internet audience.

This is not a cosmetic platform change. It is a change in ritual type. The broadcast-format ceremony addressed a family audience sitting before a television set. A YouTube ceremony addresses an individual viewer who may watch on a phone, tune in midway, or switch to other content. A broadcast ritual requires simultaneous presence. A YouTube ritual permits fragmented consumption. The question is whether the ritual effect will survive the format change.

Three Scenarios

AMPAS is in an unsettledHabitus broken or threatened; manifestos and declarations signal instability (Swidler) period. The signs are obvious: the code is declared explicitly (RAISE), defended publicly, attacked publicly. SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture does not need explanations. When CEO Kramer answers a question about RAISE by explaining that "we don't want to legislate art" [9], this is a signal of instability. In a settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) period, the question is not asked.

It is more useful to identify two extremes and a middle ground.

First extreme: full internalization. RAISE is absorbed by the industry, the code becomes the invisible habitus of a new generation, the question "why the standards?" ceases to be asked. SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture is restored.

Second extreme: rejection. Studios under legal and political pressure (EO 14151/14173) cease submitting the RAISE form, and AMPAS is forced to choose between sanctions (which the charter does not provide for) and tacit acceptance (which undermines the standards).

The most probable is the middle scenario: formal compliance without internalization. Studios continue to submit the RAISE form but achieve compliance through standards C and D (internships and marketing staff composition) without changing casting or narrative. The standards become an HR checklist with an Oscar label. The code formally exists but produces no cultural effect. This is the most stable scenario because it satisfies everyone: AMPAS preserves the standards, studios fulfill them at minimal cost, critics lose their target.

Which of the three scenarios materializes depends on whether the "Oscar bump" remains sufficient to justify a $15-25 million campaign [18]. If the bump ceases to cover costs, studios will lose the financial motivation to participate in the ritual, and RAISE along with it.

Through the Cultural DiamondFour poles of a cultural object: creator, object, receiver, social world (Griswold) (Present)

Along the creator-object axis, the Board of Governors, CEO Kramer, and President Howell Taylor manage the ritual; the institutional design of RAISE is embedded in procedure. The axis is formally intact, but tension is created by the divergence between the institution (AMPAS preserves the standards) and the subjects (studios under pressure from EO 14151/14173).

Along the object-receiver axis, the 2026 ceremony drew 17.9 million viewers [11]. The industrial audience participates: campaigns are conducted, RAISE forms are submitted. The mass audience continues to shrink. The gap between the two audiences is widening.

Along the receiver-social world axis, the globalization of membership (25% outside the US) expands the institution's social world. The YouTube contract from 2029 potentially expands the audience. But the ritual remains Americocentric: the ceremony takes place at the Dolby Theatre, nominees are predominantly English-speaking. Global re-fusion through a national ritual reproduces the same structural problem as Netflix's inclusion lens.

Along the creator-social world axis, CEO Kramer articulates a global ambition ("we are not the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce" [9]). The $500 million fundraising campaign points to an institutional strategy for long-term survival independent of ceremony ratings. AMPAS is building a financial base not dependent on a single ritual.

Boundary WorkMechanism of drawing boundaries: who is inside, who is outside, along which axes (Lamont) (Present)

The definition of "the worthy" continues to be set by the competition of two standards (excellence versus representation), and the competition will not be resolved publicly because RAISE operates confidentially. The globalization of membership creates a new type of cultural boundary: international members (25%) vote on Best Picture alongside American members, and the question "whose standard?" acquires a geographic dimension. The shift to YouTube potentially dismantles the previous socioeconomic boundary: the ceremony will cease to be accessible only to cable TV subscribers.

Carrier GroupsSocial groups that carry and transmit the narrative within an institution (Alexander & Eyerman) (Present)

The code is transmitted by the Equity and Inclusion Committee, CEO Kramer, the international membership segment, and studios that have integrated RAISE into their production pipelines. The counter-narrative is carried by political figures operating through EO 14151/14173, conservative media, and a portion of industry veterans. Global expansion creates a third group: international members for whom the inclusion lens is neither a mandate nor an object of resistance but a cultural puzzle.

Iconic ConsciousnessFusion of form and meaning: the object carries meaning without context (Alexander) (Present)

The statuette retains full iconic status. The 98th ceremony confirmed this: actor Michael B. Jordan's win for Sinners and the first-ever Oscar for casting (casting director Cassandra Kulukundis) became cultural moments discussed beyond the realm of film criticism. Cinematographer Autumn Durald Arkapaw became the first woman to win the Oscar for Best Cinematography [12]. Each of these milestones reinforces the new code's narrative (expansion, pioneering) without destroying the symbol's iconic status. Iconic consciousnessFusion of form and meaning: the object carries meaning without context (Alexander) continues to function; the question is whether the ceremony will remain a living ritual in which icons are produced or become a museum space in which they are stored.

The Civil SphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander) (Present)

In 2026, AMPAS occupies a paradoxical position in the civil sphereAutonomous sphere with a democratic/antidemocratic code; presence grants legitimacy beyond the cultural field (Alexander). Within the organization, the inclusion code dominates (RAISE, the electorate, the Equity Committee). Outside, the American political context (EO 14151/14173) marks DEI as a legal risk. AMPAS, as a 501(c)(6) without government funding, possesses an immunity that studios lack. But studios are the subjects of RAISE. A situation in which the institution setting the standards is better protected than those obligated to fulfill them creates an asymmetry. This asymmetry could become a point of rupture: if a studio refuses to submit the RAISE form under pressure from the executive orders, AMPAS will face a choice between sanctions (which the charter does not provide for) and tacit acceptance of the violation (which undermines the standards).

VI. What Remains Constant Across All Periods

Three periods yield sufficient data for establishing structural constants.

Monopoly on defining the sacred. AMPAS has controlled the definition of "the best film" for the Western market for ninety-seven years. No other organization has managed to create a competing signal of comparable weight. BAFTA, the Golden Globes, Critics Choice, and the Spirit Awards are perceived as second-order signals. The monopoly rests on two foundations: the statuette's iconic status and the economic bonus of a nomination. As long as both foundations hold, the monopoly is stable.

The ceremonial ritual as the sole performance. AMPAS, unlike Disney and Netflix, executes its code through a single ritual once a year. This creates a specific fragility: if the ceremony ceases to produce re-fusion, the institution has no alternative channel. Disney offset its box-office de-fusion through theme parks and merchandise. Netflix offset its walkout through the algorithm. AMPAS has no compensatory mechanism: the ceremony either works or it does not.

Confidentiality as both shield and weakness. The RAISE form is confidential. AMPAS cannot prove the standards work; critics cannot prove they do not. Confidentiality shields against specific attacks but precludes verification of effectiveness. Whether this was a deliberate design decision or a side effect of borrowing the BFI format, there is no public data. The result is the same in either case: the system is simultaneously invulnerable to specific criticism and incapable of demonstrating its own effect.

VII. Structural Conclusion

First pattern. SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) code holds as long as the question "who defines the sacred?" remains invisible. For seventy years AMPAS operated in settledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture because nobody asked on what grounds a private club determines the best film. #OscarsSoWhite made this question visible. The question cannot be pushed back. SettledHabitus works invisibly; the question "why do we do it this way" never arises (Swidler) culture of the first type will not return.

Second pattern. The replacement of quality arbiters precedes the replacement of the code, and this is not coincidence but a structural mechanism. Every transition in AMPAS's history began with the former arbiters losing their monopoly on defining the sacred. In 2012, the Los Angeles Times discovered who votes. In 2015, #OscarsSoWhite raised the question of these arbiters' legitimacy. In 2016, the import of new ones began. New rules (RAISE) were adopted by an electorate that was itself the product of the previous reform. The sequence is closed: scandal, then composition reform, then new arbiters, then new standards. Each step legitimized the next. Challenging RAISE from within is impossible because those who might have challenged it were not invited, and those who were invited shared the code. Whoever controls the composition of the arbiters controls the definition of the sacred. This is the central mechanism: not the content of the standards but power over who establishes them.

Third pattern. An institution that controls a single ritual is critically dependent on the audience for that ritual. Disney, having lost its theatrical audience, retained its theme parks. Netflix, having lost employee trust, retained its subscribers. AMPAS, upon losing its television audience, loses its sole venue for re-fusion. The shift to YouTube in 2029 is an attempt to solve this problem through a format change, but it does not guarantee re-fusion: global accessibility does not equal global ritual participation.

Fourth pattern. The statuette's iconic status shields the institution from the consequences of de-fusion but not from de-fusion itself. The Oscar as a symbol functions without context: anyone in the world recognizes the golden figure. This gives the institution a margin of resilience. But iconic status does not produce re-fusion: it recalls past re-fusion rather than creating new re-fusion. If the ceremony ceases to be an event, the statuette will become a monument rather than a living symbol.

All four patterns point in the same direction. AMPAS is in an unsettledHabitus broken or threatened; manifestos and declarations signal instability (Swidler) period: the old code has been acknowledged as problematic, the new code is institutionalized, but re-fusion with the mass audience has not been achieved. The audience is not rejecting the new code; it is leaving the ceremony for reasons only partially related to the code. An institution that published the mechanism (RAISE) but concealed the results (confidentiality of the form) has created a system that can be neither attacked specifically, nor defended with evidence, nor verified from the outside. The question of 2026 is not whether RAISE is good or bad. The question is whether the ceremony will remain a living ritual in which 17 million people experience the announcement of the winner as an event personally relevant to them, or will become an industrial procedure watched only by those who are paid to watch it.