Showing papers on "Relational sociology published in 2020"

From norms to normative configurations: A pragmatist and relational approach to theorizing normativity in IR

Abstract: Normativity matters in international politics, but IR scholarship will benefit from de-reifying ‘norms’ as units into a relational, configurational alternative. The alternative I propose here is the ‘normative configuration’: an arrangement of ongoing, interacting practices establishing action-specific regulation, value-orientation, and avenues of contestation. This responds to recent constructivist scholarship, particularly from relational sociology and practice theory, that implies the need for ontological and analytical alternatives to ‘norms’ as central concepts responsible for establishing rules, institutions, and values in social life. I offer a way of conceptualizing and analyzing normativity consistent with these alternative approaches. Namely, I have brought together a pragmatist theory of action with the social theories of a number of key relational social theorists and philosophers, oriented around a reading of what norms-talk actually does for social enquiry. I then outline a three stage process – de-reification, attributing agency, and tracing transactions – that allows scholars to study transformations in normative configurations. Finally, I discuss what this contributes to the recent turns toward practices and relations, as the latest direction in constructivist scholarship within the discipline.

Whither IR? Multiplicity, relations, and the paradox of International Relations

Abstract: Justin Rosenberg rightly highlights the paucity of International Relations’ (IR) influence in other disciplines, and selected works in historical sociology demonstrate the significance of the inter...

How can we trust a political leader? Ethics, institutions, and relational theory:

Abstract: That citizens can trust leaders in politics and the public sphere to be sincere and truthful helps to make democracy work. However, the idea of authentic communication raises both sociological and ...

A Bourdieusian rebuttal to Bourdieu’s rebuttal: social network analysis, regression, and methodological breakthroughs

Abstract: Bourdieu carved out a distinctive analytical niche for his reflexive sociology. His epistemological tool of field analysis, sometimes coupled with statistical correspondence analysis, is particularly powerful when deciphering the matrix of objective structures and subjective structures within social spaces (field) where agents vie for positions (capital), strategise dispositions (habitus), and negotiate practices. When grappling with the inner workings of the social world and the logic of practice within the social world, Bourdieu favours his field theory over network theory and considers correspondence analysis to be superior to regression analysis. In this paper, I argue that Bourdieu’s canonical theory-laden analytical framework does not exclude other methodological approaches. Indeed, Bourdieu himself argues against ‘methodological monotheism’. I therefore make an attempt to develop a Bourdieusian approach to Social Network Analysis (SNA) and regression analysis, despite Bourdieu’s explicit rebuttal to these methodological schools. To this end, I first review Bourdieu’s rebuttal to network analysis and regression analysis. I then tentatively incorporate SNA and regression into Bourdieu’s analytical framework. This is followed by an example of using SNA and regression in Bourdieusian research conducted in a Chinese educational context. In this vein, I engage with a Bourdieusian rebuttal to Bourdieu’s rebuttal.

Causation Is Not Everything: On Constitution and Trans-Actional View of Social Science Methodology

Abstract: The chapter outlines two major understandings of the social, which are referred to as “inter-actionalism” and “trans-actionalism” with reference to Dewey and Bentley’s distinction between three understandings of social action (self-action, inter-action, trans-action). It is argued that the major difference between these understandings is not in their emphasis on the centrality of social relations in making sense of social phenomena but in their implicit understanding of the form of those relations: inter-actionalism sees the form of social relations to be causal in nature, whereas trans-actionalism sees them in terms of constitution. By bringing out this distinction between causation and constitution (and their interconnection) and articulating the methodological consequences of causal and constitutive theorizing/explanation, it is clarified in a concise vocabulary the core of deep relational or trans-actional version of relational sociology (promoted among others by Emirbayer, Depelteau and the author of the current chapter).

Toward a relational sociology of credit

Abstract: This article aims to describe the sociological studies of credit developed in France over the past dozen years. These studies propose a specific method and approach to address credit, primarily understanding it as a result of social interactions embedded in organizational and legal structures, with consequences on inequalities, social stratification, and individuals’ life experiences. The article is divided into four parts: after an introduction presenting what can be called the French school of the sociology of credit, we present the ‘different voice’ of the French school of the sociology of credit, which analyses the credit market according to a relational approach. The third section examines the construction of social domination at the moment of credit assessment. We then focus on the demand side: borrowers are not atomized individuals but part of households and other local communities. Finally, the conclusion discusses how this French approach to credit may be useful outside of France.

Sociology of Artificial Intelligence: A Relational Sociological Investigation in the Field of Health

Abstract: The effects of artificial intelligence in all areas of life, especially in health, education, economy, family and law, are gradually increasing all over the world. It is now a common assumption that artificial intelligence as a social phenomenon cannot be analyzed without the contribution of the social sciences. The main problem of this research, despite the uncertainty of the effects of artificial intelligence, as a developing country, is widely used in Turkey. For this reason, the primary purpose of this paper is to reveal what artificial intelligence is and its effects on health. To achieve this goal, Harrison White’s book “Identity and Control” [1] was used. Thus, ambiguity in both social relations (ambage) and cultural values (ambiguity) has been tried to be revealed. Participant observations and interview data from daily life are discussed with concepts such as “turning point”, “liminality”and “ambivalence” in the literature. Thus, a relational sociological study was conducted. In addition, as far as possible, some new concepts have been produced to help us understand this new situation. For example, instead of “robot”, the concept of “humanmatic” has been introduced into the literature. In addition, “mistress”, “ dressing” as metaphors inspired by Goffman [2] also used to explain the location and position of artificial intelligence in Turkey by”reframing”.

Fluxes and Structures: Which Relational Gaze?A Comparison between Relational Sociologies

Abstract: Many scholars today share a view of relational sociology as a processual-transactional approach whose basic tenet is the fluid, relativistic, contingent, transactional character of social relations. They invite sociologists to see our so-called objects (societies, institutions, social patterns, conflicts, social movements, social classes, etc.) in a processual way. In this contribution the author objects that relationalism offers a reductive vision of social reality, because it supports a flat social ontology rather than a stratified social ontology. Relationalism reduces relationships to pure flows, considering structures as purely contingent, while relational sociology attributes a structure to relationships and gives autonomy to structures, even if they are produced by processes. We have to distinguish between different orders of reality: the processual-interactional (relationalist) and the relational orders. To see all of this, it is necessary to assume a relational gaze that is only possible if a supra-functional, morphogenetic framework is adopted.

Introduction: A Relational Sociology of Morality in Practice

Abstract: In this introductory chapter, Abbott highlights the commonalities between the relational sociology critiques of dualistic and static thinking in social theory on the one hand, and the recent philosophic critiques of the problematic reliance of Enlightenment moral thought on universalism, rationalism, and the disembedded subject on the other. This, Abbott argues, indicates the necessity of a relational sociology of morality. Specifically, the work of the likes of MacIntyre, Gilligan, and Dreyfus, along with a resurgent body of research conducted within the ‘new’ sociology of morality, point towards viewing morality in terms of practice, including everyday practice, and thus calls for a relational sociology of morality in practice.

Distanciamiento social una problemática en tiempos de COVID-19

Abstract: The aim of this research work is to see how and what kind of " reciprocal interactions" (Wechselwirkung) are produced in social distancing in the context of confinement and health crisis, some elements of this new social change are already visible in various parts of the planet. From this new way of life that we will experience there will be significant changes, since we still do not know how much longer the pandemic will last, hence I propose first to analyze social distancing, social interaction (Sabido, Simmel and Goffman) and their current implications, and then in a second moment analyze the important aspects of relational sociology and the new types of " reciprocal interactions" that arise from the current conditions of confinement and finally, starting from a methodological design, I present some scopes from, interviews and experiences in current situations.

The Self and a Relational Explanation of Morality in Practice

Abstract: Abbott compellingly argues for using George Herbert Mead’s work as a basis for a relational sociology of morality. The chapter outlines why Bourdieu’s theory of habitus struggles to provide a basis for a sociology of moral practice. This is argued on the grounds that Mead’s theory of the self is firstly better equipped to explain moral habituation, which Bourdieu neglects. Secondly, because Mead emphasised the role of reflexivity in interaction, his work is able to account for the role of ‘mundane reflexivity’ in interactionally situated moral conduct. Finally, Mead’s theory of reflexive individuation is able to provide a relational account of the dialogic capacities of the individual to engage with their own moral articulations in relation to the perspectives of others.

The “Relational Turn” in the Social Sciences

Abstract: The chapter starts with an argument that informs the entire book: the major difference between relational and non-relational approaches is not in their emphasis on the importance of social relations in their analyses, but the fundamentally different understanding of those relations. Relational approaches view relations as constitutive and therefore, the entities and their relations cannot be considered as being separate from one another. A non-relational approach presumes the primacy and givenness of entities that might or might not enter relations with other such entities. In most cases, the relations in that sense are presumed to be causal, which entails considering relations and entities as being separate from one another. This simple distinction between relational and non-relational approaches is “tested” by the discussions between “substantialism” and “relationalism” as they are found in discussions of relational sociology. The chapter concludes by comparing the substantialist and relational understandings of social processes.

Conclusion: A Relational View of Moral Phenomena

Abstract: This chapter concludes the argument that a relational sociology of morality is able to provide a coherent and dynamic picture of how moral phenomena are sustained, transmitted, and transformed in interactional practice. The arguments for a Meadian-based interactional relationalism are reaffirmed, as are the arguments for viewing morality predominantly in terms of everyday practice.

An Overview of Relational Sociology

Abstract: In this chapter, Abbott provides an insightful and accessible overview of the major arguments of relational sociology, before relational approaches are drawn together with theories of practice to form a dynamic interactionist relational sociology, the virtues of which are expounded via a compelling critique of Bourdieu’s structural relationalism. It is argued further that the critiques delivered by relational sociology against holist/objectivist and subjectivist/methodologically individualistic conceptualisations of social life are not only resounding, but also provide an essential challenge to how morality has been conceptualised both within philosophy and sociology. These critiques will thus be detailed in via a relational view of practice and situated subjectivity, which, Abbott argues, offers a new path out of previous impasses in moral theorising.

From Holism and Individualism to a Relational Perspective on the Sociology of Morality

Abstract: This chapter outlines the necessity of a sociological view of morality. However, it is then argued that the traditional dualistic tendencies towards holism and individualism, which have plagued social theory more generally, have often likewise played themselves out in sociological conceptualisations of morality. The problems of such dualistic approaches to morality are detailed via a critique of Durkheim’s holist approach and Zygmunt Bauman’s individualist conception of morality. Indeed, the critiques of moral theories of Durkheim and Bauman are among the most extensive and rigorous available in the contemporary literature. The chapter concludes that the capacity of relational sociology to undermine traditional dualistic distinctions allows it to guide sociological conceptions of morality in a way that avoid the pitfalls associated with either holist or individualist approaches.

From Rationalism to Practices, Dispositions, and Situated Subjectivities: The View from Philosophy

Abstract: In this chapter relational sociology critiques of methodological individualism and rational action theories are applied specifically to a forceful critique of Enlightenment philosophy conceptualisations of the moral subject and moral action, which culminates in a decisive critical evaluation of Singer’s applied ethics. The sociological value of recent philosophic attempts to re-conceptualise morality in terms of practices (MacIntyre in After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Duckworth, London, 1985), everyday embodied comportment (Dreyfus in Skillful Coping: Essays on the Phenomenology of Everyday Perception and Action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014), and situated subjectivities (Gilligan in In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982) are then assessed through a relational lens. This includes a much-needed sociological critique of MacIntyre’s virtue ethics perspective on moral practice, as well as critical appraisals of Dreyfus’s and Gilligan’s work in providing a basis for a relational sociology of morality in practice.

The Normative Grammar of Relational Analysis: Recognition Theory's Contribution to Understanding Short-Comings in IR's Relational Turn

Abstract: This Theory Note focuses on the resurgent interest in relationalism in constructivist IR theory. I begin by contextualizing current efforts to move constructivism toward this theoretical register. In particular, I focus on the framing influence of Mustafa Emirbayer's “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology,” showing how key theoretical concerns articulated there have resonated with the constructivist critique of rationalist and structuralist explanatory approaches in IR. These cross-purposes, however, also signal that the lacunae identified by Emirbayer should be of interest to IR constructivists seeking to promote a relationalist research project. I argue that in particular Emirbayer's identification of a gap on normative implications has not received adequate attention in IR debates. In the second part, I discuss Honneth's recognition theoretic approach as promising for supplementing a normative register that satisfies the “process-ontological” proclivities of relationalism as understood by IR constructivists. In the final part, I outline by way of an example some of the meta-theoretical and methodological implications of this version of recognition theory, contrast it with contending arguments in current debates, and commend its potential.