Showing papers on "Relational sociology published in 2018"
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: EAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, MEAD and SERRES.
Abstract: EAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE, BOURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN, WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
90 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: The relevance of relational sociology as a sociology of relations based on core ideas such as processual thinking, the idea of interdependency, the principle of co-production and the rejection of the idea that social phenomena should be seen as social ‘substances' is discussed in this paper.
Abstract: This chapter explains the relevance of relational sociology as a sociology of relations based on core ideas such as processual thinking, the idea of interdependency, the principle of co-production and the rejection of the idea that social phenomena should be seen as social ‘substances’. Key issues such as the existence of the causal powers of social structures, the importance of non-human interactants and the principle of emergency are also presented. The relational turn is connected to similar ideas one can find with relational thinking in other disciplines such as psychology, psychoanalysis, process-relational philosophy and archeology. The relational turn in sociology is promoted as a promising intellectual movement questioning fundamental principles and ideas in the discipline.
44 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, a conceptual triangle is used to capture the entire variation of conceptions of power that present themselves as "relational turn" in the social sciences, including self-action, inter-action and trans-action.
Abstract: “Relational turn” is a new buzzword in the social sciences. Yet there is a lot less consensus on the very meaning of “relational.” The latter is a family-resemblance concept such as most of the important social science concepts. One possible remedy for alleviating the confusion is using a metalanguage for organizing the different meanings of the word. I take my lead from one such metalanguage, which was coined a couple of generations ago by Dewey and Bentley, picked up by programmatic metatheorists of “relational sociology” in 1990s and 2000s, and carried to the topic of conceptualizing power in the current decade. This is the vocabulary of self-action, inter-action and trans-action. In this chapter I use this conceptual triangle to capture the entire variation of conceptions of power that present themselves as “relational.”
24 citations
01 Jun 2018
TL;DR: The authors identify three causes of financialization from three extant clusters of scholastic activity: an organic political economy that sees finance expanding as a product or byproduct of larger state and imperial level political struggles, a relational sociology that sees the ways that finance expands by becoming another medium for expressing and constraining social relationships, and a cultural analysis that observes the increasing redefinition of discursive and material practices as financial.
Abstract: This article suggests that it is advantageous for social scientists to deliberately depart from functionalist theories seeking to explain the expansion of financial instruments and logics across social life. Rather, we identify three causes of financialization from three extant clusters of scholastic activity: an organic political economy that sees finance expanding as a product or by‐product of larger state‐ and imperial‐level political struggles, a relational sociology that sees the ways that finance expands by becoming another medium for expressing and constraining social relationships, and a cultural analysis that observes the increasing redefinition of discursive and material practices as financial. Across this larger discussion, we introduce and situate the contributions to this journal's special issue on financialization.
21 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: The relevance of relational sociology as a sociology of relations based on core ideas such as processual thinking, the idea of interdependency, the principle of co-production and the rejection of the idea that social phenomena should be seen as social ‘substances' is discussed in this article.
Abstract: This chapter explains the relevance of relational sociology as a sociology of relations based on core ideas such as processual thinking, the idea of interdependency, the principle of co-production and the rejection of the idea that social phenomena should be seen as social ‘substances’. Key issues such as the existence of the causal powers of social structures, the importance of non-human interactants and the principle of emergency are also presented. The relational turn is connected to similar ideas one can find with relational thinking in other disciplines such as psychology, psychoanalysis, process-relational philosophy and archaeology. The relational turn in sociology is promoted as a promising intellectual movement questioning fundamental principles and ideas in the discipline.
18 citations
TL;DR: For instance, meaning-making in social relations has long been a key issue in sociological network thinking and research and has been addressed by an impressive body of research, most with eith....
Abstract: How to understand meaning-making in social relations has long been a key issue in sociological network thinking and research and has been addressed by an impressive body of research, most with eith...
16 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, a brief sketch of feminist epistemologies, their earlier iterations, and their contributions to relational epistemology and methodologies, while also highlighting how they have sown the seeds for continuing feminist contribution to relational dimensions of knowledge making.
Abstract: This chapter provides a brief sketch of feminist epistemologies, their earlier iterations, and their contributions to relational epistemologies and methodologies, while also highlighting how they have sown the seeds for continuing feminist contributions to relational dimensions of knowledge making. It engages, through diffractive readings, with some of the work of pioneering and leading feminist epistemologist Lorraine Code and her four-decade trajectory of writing on knowledge making, subjectivities, and epistemic responsibilities, and especially her recent writing on ecological thinking. I work with Code’s metaphorical and literal ecological examples—Deleuzian ethology, a case study of Rachel Carson, and an exploration of seeds and their socio-cultural roots. I argue that these metaphors work to demonstrate how Code challenges dominant approaches to knowledge making that separate epistemology and ontology and presents ecological thinking as an alternative approach that entangles politics, ethics, epistemology, and ontology as well as knowing, being, and doing. The chapter highlights some of the methodological implications of working with ecological thinking; specifically, ecological thinking offers insights about epistemological and ontological relationality that resonates with, but also expands, current sociological methodological approaches and relational sociology. These include making shifts from reflexivity to diffraction and from interaction to intra-action; a focus on vitality and processes of becoming; and thinking through our ontological underpinnings, including what it means to work with ontological alterity and ontological multiplicities. I argue that Code’s ecological thinking approach warrants more attention within relational sociology.
14 citations
TL;DR: In economic sociology, relations and relationships have emerged as central yet poorly specified concepts as mentioned in this paper, and a new paradigm is coalescing under the rubric of "relational economic sociology".
Abstract: In economic sociology, relations and relationships have emerged as central yet poorly specified concepts. In this paper, I clarify these terms in a positive critique of the current state of the field. I then consider the ways in which the proposed framework can help analysts to bridge the divide between economics and sociology. Armed with techniques derived from formal network analysis, the new economic sociology offered the first sustained foray into economic territory, but sociological skeptics remain unsatisfied. Two broad rejoinders to this network-analytic approach emerged in the last two decades, but both correctives, nevertheless, leave the divide intact. In the last decade, however, a new paradigm is coalescing under the rubric of “relational economic sociology. While showing promise, it furthers the confusion surrounding the key concepts of “relations” and “relationships.” The proposed framework provides a foundation for constructive dialogue among the different traditions which constitute this new paradigm.
12 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the re-emergence of Niklas Luhmann's systems theory has been discussed in a special context: in recent years, we have observed the rise of relational sociology and within this paradigm, we can witness the re•emergiveness of Luhman's system theory.
Abstract: This article is meant as an intervention in a special context currently taking shape: in recent years, we have observed the rise of relational sociology and within this paradigm, we can witness the re‐emergence of Niklas Luhmann's systems theory. This is worth mentioning since the latter has been largely neglected by other sociologists until now. This article supports this re‐emergence and, in an effort to make it easier, it explains how Luhmann developed his systems theory by borrowing key elements from the cybernetics movement. These elements revolve around the concept of self‐reference. The article discusses the meaning of self‐reference in light of four figures: self‐regulation, self‐organization, self‐observation and self‐production. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
11 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose Karl Marx, Georg Simmel, Gabriel Tarde and Marcel Mauss as prime relational theorists and suggest that, together, they form a system.
Abstract: Relational sociology is not a paradigm, but a thematic cluster of theories that take the relation as their central category. Within the cluster there are, basically, two approaches, a relational-structural one and a processual-interactionist one, that fly under the same flag, but are in tension with each other. The task of general relational theory is to unify these two approaches, though nothing indicates that such a unified theory is at hand. In this chapter, I do some initial mapping of the field. I propose Karl Marx, Georg Simmel, Gabriel Tarde and Marcel Mauss as prime relational theorists and suggest that, together, they form a system. Similarly, I distinguish four relational constellations and argue that a relational social theory needs to systematically interweave structuralism, processualism, interactionism and symbolism in a general theory that articulates structure, culture and practices.
11 citations
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the common ground between postcolonial theory and relational sociology is illuminated, and an empirical illustration of postcolonial relationalism in social theory is provided, examining the French and Haitian revolutions from the perspective of Pierre Bourdieu's field theory.
Abstract: This chapter illuminates the common ground between postcolonial theory and relational sociology. While they seem opposed, in fact they both share a critique of substantialism and place ontological and analytic primacy upon constitutive relations. In postcolonial theory, this “postcolonial relationalism” is evident especially, but not only, in Edward Said’s “contrapuntal” approach. After drawing out these commonalities, the chapter provides an empirical illustration of postcolonial relationalism in social theory, examining the French and Haitian revolutions from the perspective of Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: The relational turn in the social sciences has a long and diverse intellectual history as discussed by the authors, and the diversity of ontological and methodological starting points allows scholars to investigate a wide range of phenomena.
Abstract: This chapter engages with the “relational turn” in the social sciences and names significant events, trajectories, or streams of relational thought. The goal is to cite key developments and how they relate to one another and my argument. Given my particular interest in organizing activity, my focus is on the Human Relations Movement of the early twentieth century, the New York School of relational sociology, and then contemporary developments in sociology, leadership, and to a lesser extent, the natural sciences. While I concede that there is increasing interest in what has come to be known as “relational sociology,” relational scholarship has a long and diverse intellectual history. The diversity of ontological and methodological starting points allows scholars to investigate a wide range of phenomena. This diversity, complexity, depth, and vitality enable dialogue and debate without requiring consensus. What binds them together is their scholarly focus on relations rather than alignment with a specific empirical object and/or method of inquiry.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this article, the authors outline the approach that they have been cultivating in recent years briefly sketching certain central claims of that approach whilst also developing a few new strands, such as the need for relational theory to be complemented by relational methodologies and empirical research.
Abstract: As this book shows there are many varieties of relational sociology. In this chapter I outline the approach that I have been cultivating in recent years briefly sketching certain central claims of that approach whilst also developing a few new strands. Specifically I want to: (1) further open up the philosophical underpinnings of my approach; (2) consider some of the mediations which extend social interactions and relations through time and space; (3) stress the need for relational theory to be complemented by relational methodologies (and empirical research); and (4) consider briefly what this might entail. The chapter tackles each of these aims in turn. I begin, however, with a summary of the central claims of my approach.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors address some of the theoretical reasons that network analysis may be perceived as problematic by relational sociologists, and suggest a style of network analysis that is consistent with relational sociology.
Abstract: Social network analysis is in many ways a perfect method for relational sociology, yet it is not always favored by relationalists. I address some of the theoretical reasons that network analysis may be perceived as problematic by relational sociologists, then suggest a style of network analysis that is consistent with relational sociology. A relational social network analysis should retain an interest in how the context and contents interact with the structure of ties to shape social outcomes of interest. I also suggest that an attention to interactions rather than relations and an emphasis on network dynamics are consistent with relational approaches. Various methods, including multilevel, multiplex, and dynamic network modeling are introduced as innovative means through which a relational sociological agenda may be advanced.
TL;DR: In this article, a relational view of innovation is proposed to examine and explain how novelty develops in creative industries and propose a framework informed by Gabriel Tarde's relational sociology, by reinterpreting this sociology with regard to practice theory.
Abstract: This article argues that a relational view of innovation opens up new perspectives of examining and explaining how novelty develops in creative industries. Although many researchers have given time to this topic, a theoretically grounded concept of relational innovation remains undeveloped within the literature. To address this issue, I set out to offer a framework informed by Gabriel Tarde's relational sociology, by re‐interpreting this sociology with regard to practice theory. By applying this framework in an empirical study of haute cuisine, I identify three processes of innovating at varying degrees of novelty (repeating, adapting, and differentiating). By relating those processes in the form of practices‐nets, I show that innovating is not a linear development process, but that a culinary innovation emerges in between relations of everyday practices that define and transform its value. I hope, in this way, to contribute to a more complex and subtle understanding of culinary innovation as relational.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that social relationships and networks are composed of relational expectations about how particular actors are supposed to behave towards specific others, and that all of these emerge, reproduce, and change in the sequence of communicative events.
Abstract: Relational sociology regards social relationships and networks as core features of the social world. It theoretically reflects on their nature and on their connections to other social features, including inequality, culture, institutions, and fields of society. Building on a processual ontology, I argue that all of these emerge, reproduce, and change in the sequence of communicative events. As a type of social structure, social relationships and networks are composed of relational expectations about how particular actors are supposed to behave towards specific others. They map observable regularities in communication, and make for them. Within this theoretical framework, a number of forms of meaning are examined with regard to their interplay with network constellations: communication draws on culturally available models (‘relationship frames’) to construct the expectations in relationships. Social categories make for the ordering of ties in a network, but also depend on networks as patterned accordingly. And social networks are imprinted with relational institutions making for the pattering of social ties by structurally equivalent roles. Actors in social relationships and networks can be individuals, but also collectives or corporates.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems as mentioned in this paper is a theory that redefines social systems as ongoing, dynamic, self-organizing processes and aligns very well with the project or idea of a relational sociology.
Abstract: Niklas Luhmann never self-identified as a relational sociologist. His is a theory of social systems. Some relational sociologists tend to assume that the concept of system can only be deterministic; others in the field have nonetheless taken an interest of Luhmann’s theory. Luhmann brings in numerous concepts—autopoiesis, functional differentiation, operational closure, environment, complexity, self-reference, communication and re-entry—that redefine social systems as ongoing, dynamic, self-organizing processes. As a result, his theory aligns very well with the project or idea of a relational sociology. To defend this claim, the chapter presents an overview of Luhmann’s systems theory. Next it sets up different criteria for defining what relational sociology is or could be, and it evaluates Luhmann’s theory in light of these criteria. Lastly, the chapter discusses the works of four relational sociologists who have already engaged Luhmann’s ideas: Stephan Fuchs, Harrison White, Jan Fuhse and Pierpaolo Donati.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: The Critical Realist Relational Sociology (CRRS) as discussed by the authors is an original version of relational sociology, developed beginning in 1983, which is also called relational theory of society.
Abstract: This chapter presents an original version of relational sociology (critical realist relational sociology, or CRRS), developed beginning in 1983, which is also called ‘relational theory of society’. It shares with the other relational sociologies the idea of avoiding both methodological individualism and holism. The main differences lie in the way social relations are defined, the kind of reality that is attributed to them, how they configure social formations, and the ways in which they are generated (emergence) and changed (morphogenesis). In particular, this approach is suitable to understanding how the morphogenesis of society comes about through social relations, which are the connectors that mediate between agency and social structure. The generative mechanisms that feed social change reside in the dynamics of the networks of social relations that alter the social molecule constituting structures already in place. The scope of CRRS is threefold. Theoretically, it can orient social research toward unseen and/or immaterial realities. Empirically, it can show how new social forms are created, changed, or destroyed depending on different processes of valorization or devalorization of social relations. Finally, it can help to design and implement social policies and welfare services based on networking interventions.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: The unpredictability of associations is directly connected with the heterogeneity of the associated elements and the associations themselves, and consequently, they lead to inequality between constituted associations, in other words, to asymmetries.
Abstract: With his concept of association, Bruno Latour founds his symmetry principle in a relativistic and pluralist sociological conception of society as networked actors. Social reality is a mixture of heterogeneous humans and non-humans, and their associations lead to a collectivity. The unpredictability of associations is directly connected with the heterogeneity of the associated elements and the associations themselves. Associations are not necessarily planned, even if the actors/actants act strategically. Because associations are unforeseeable, new combinations of associations can occur at any time unexpectedly; and consequently, they lead to inequality between constituted associations, in other words, to asymmetries. Associations are at the heart of the networks that represent society as a relational and movable reality.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: Critical realism is not exactly a form of relational sociology if only because it is more an underlying philosophy than sociology specifically as discussed by the authors, but it does take a relational approach to social phenomena, but as its name implies it also tends to be more realist than much relational sociology and more affirmative of substances, structures, and humanism.
Abstract: This chapter situates critical realism (CR) vis-a-vis relational sociology. CR is not exactly a form of relational sociology if only because it is more an underlying philosophy than sociology specifically. The chapter goes on to talk about what is common to and different about CR in relation to relational sociology. Born of progressive and even Marxian sources, CR definitely takes a relational approach to social phenomena, but as its name implies it also tends to be more realist than much relational sociology and more affirmative of substances, structures, and humanism than many forms of relational sociology. The chapter also presents a rather sharp defense of these positions against the counterpositions more associated with relational sociology.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the dynamic interplay among structure, culture, and agency on which Emirbayer builds his research agenda for relational sociology and examine the enduring influences of John Dewey and Pierre Bourdieu on Emirbayers' relational thinking.
Abstract: Mustafa Emirbayer’s “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology” calls for a process-in-time understanding of the unfolding interaction between structure and agency that reproduces and transforms practical action. This chapter seeks to situate Emirbayer’s Manifesto essay within his broader intellectual pursuits in the direction of relational sociology. We begin the chapter by outlining the dynamic interplay among structure, culture, and agency on which Emirbayer builds his research agenda for relational sociology. We then examine the enduring influences of John Dewey and Pierre Bourdieu on Emirbayer’s relational thinking. Finally, we discuss Emirbayer and Desmond’s research agenda for studying the racial order in America as a prototype of Emirbayerian relational sociology in practice.
06 Sep 2018
TL;DR: The authors argue that sociological work on deliberation has by and large moved away from big ideas toward a narrow project that is somewhat disconnected from the world outside the ivory tower, and advocate an approach to deliberation that engages with the relational turn of sociology, focusing less on decision-making outcomes and more on social relations and dynamics.
Abstract: Sociology has long been interested in the study of deliberation; it is a “big idea” that might guide the organization of modern social life. While in some strands of sociology it still is, this chapter argues that sociological work on deliberation has by and large moved away from big ideas toward a narrow project that is somewhat disconnected from the world outside the ivory tower. The chapter presents the best sociology has to offer scholars of deliberation, with a focus on ideas and practice. Specifically, the chapter advocates an approach to deliberation that engages with the relational turn of sociology, focusing less on decision-making outcomes and more on social relations and dynamics.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: White as discussed by the authors proposes a model to answer the question of how social formations emerge, and adopts Peirce's semiotic model of indexical and reflexive language to understand context and meaning production in social life.
Abstract: Harrison C. White is a founding force behind the relational turn of American sociology and one of the most influential scholars in organizational, economic, and mathematical sociology. White builds a monumental theoretical model to answer the question of how social formations emerge. The model begins analytically with identities triggered by stochastic process at any scale—from individuals to empires. Once decoupled from their environments, identities seek footings vis-a-vis other identities in control efforts to reduce uncertainty and self-organize in disciplined molecules to accomplish vital tasks and secure perduration. Signaling and comparability among identities are key. Specialization ensues. Increased complexity triggers further control efforts and so identities polymerize ever more intricate social networks and phenomenological domains—netdoms—that merge in types of ties delivering stories and temporalities. Identities switch across these netdoms, seeking footing and changing contexts that spark new meanings. The entire process is scale-free and recursive. White recognizes that formal network analysis does not capture these switching contexts. So, to theorize social emergence and the production of phenomenological contexts—cast in framing stories and linguistic registers—White turns to language pragmatics and adopts Peirce’s semiotic model of indexical and reflexive language as the most rigorous approach to understand context and meaning production in social life. His goal is to incorporate social spread and scope into discourse and reflexive language.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the uses and descriptions of relational sociology, collective action, and football fandom in the social scientific literature are discussed, and the foundations for the concepts and dynamics (relations/relationships, interaction, networks, social actors, and power/counter-power) are discussed.
Abstract: This chapter centrally unpicks the uses and descriptions of ‘relational sociology’, ‘collective action’, and ‘football fandom’ in the social scientific literature. In doing so, it lays down the foundations for the concepts and dynamics (these are (i) relations/relationships, (ii) interaction, (iii) networks, (iv) social actors, and (v) power/counter-power) that are core to cultural relational sociology and discusses them up in a way that can be applied to issues emerging in the study of both collective action and football fandom.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: There was an almost unanimous reaction by politicians, the media and even social scientists in using the label "riot" for what happened in early August 2011 in several cities in the UK as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: There was an almost unanimous reaction by politicians, the media and even social scientists in using the label “riot” for what happened in early August 2011 in several cities in the UK.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this article, it is argued that only from the point of view of the relational content of those concepts can Mead be of some help in defining relational sociology's project, while focusing on the ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes at work in social life, while proposing to locate the analysis on the symbols that are constitutive of both individuals and society, in their mutual and respective dialectical relations.
Abstract: George Herbert Mead’s works serve as a reference for relational sociology for several authors. Yet the perspective adopted by those authors is often derived form Herbert Blumer’s reading of Mead, which has been contested for decades even in the field of symbolic interactionism. This chapter examines the way Mead’s works can be used in relational sociology, according to the relational content of the main concepts that he developed. It is argued that only from the point of view of the relational content of those concepts can Mead be of some help in defining relational sociology’s project. While focusing on the ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes at work in social life, Mead’s perspective proposed to locate the analysis on the symbols that are constitutive of both individuals and society, in their mutual and respective dialectical relations. If relational sociology can learn something from Mead’s works, it is by using the concepts he developed in a proper fashion.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: Bourdieu's main concern was to describe the interplay between differences in human action through an empirical observation of distinctive practices as discussed by the authors, which are differences that hold meaning and make sense if we connect to others but they also separate us from others.
Abstract: Pierre Bourdieu’s main concern was to describe the interplay between differences in human action through an empirical observation of distinctive practices. Distinctive practices typify themselves in the expression of personal preferences and value judgements. Distinctions are differences that hold meaning and make sense if we connect to others but they also separate us from others. Distinction has also a second meaning: it identifies, locates and situates social actors within society; and it influences the way in which those actors behave and the way in which they themselves will be perceived. Distinction legitimates the right to have an identity, which can be recognized and defended, as well as being at the same time an object of desires, manipulations and denials. Thus, distinction contributes to the core definition of Bourdieu’s sociology as a relational one.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this article, the authors lay down seven analytical touchstones to understand the collective actions of football fans that can be gathered from the published literature in both the sociology of social movements and sport.
Abstract: This chapter lays down seven analytical touchstones to understand the collective actions of football fans that can be gathered from the published literature in both the sociology of social movements and the sociology of sport. These analytical touchstones are (i) the structures of and roles in collective action; (ii) affect, emotion, and collective effervescence; (iii) communication, cooperation, and conventions; (iv) mobilizing resources; (v) tactics; (vi) recruitment to collective action and ‘outcomes’ of mobilization; and (vii) the spaces and places of organization and action. Each is relationally defined and discussed.
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: This paper presented an approach to relationalism developed in Charles Tilly's later work, which assigns the chief explanatory role in social inquiry to accounts of changes in social relations, thus an approach serving substantive theory rather than general theory.
Abstract: This chapter presents the distinctive approach to relationalism developed in Charles Tilly’s later work. It is an approach that assigns the chief explanatory role in social inquiry to accounts of changes in social relations, thus an approach serving substantive theory rather than general theory. In Tilly’s accounts, alterations of social relations typically configure into mechanisms and processes that explain central socio-political phenomena, especially at the macro and meso levels. Tilly developed explanations most particularly of democratization, social inequality, and contentious politics. The latter term, devised by Tilly, refers to political contention outside formal political institutions, in which actors raise claims that involve the government and affect others’ interests. This broad conceptualization—subsuming more common concepts such as social movements, revolutions, labor strikes, and so on—is characteristic of Tilly’s effort towards broad and innovative comparisons.