Figuration und Emergenz

The paper reconstructs the methodology of Norbert Elias against the background of his ontology. Thereby Robert van Kriekens thesis will be defended that Elias is a proponent of a “third sociology”. His ontology shows that figurations are integrated wholes. Human beings form the parts of this wholes and necessarily build up social relations based upon their “relational properties”. This model of social wholes builds the finishing part of a mereological ontology of layers of the natural and social world. Physical-chemical wholes can reductively explained, biological and sociological wholes are ontologically and epistemologically irreducible because of phenomena of emergence. This ontology of Elias serves as a background for his methodology which does not favour individualist but moderat holist or relationalist explanations. With a new definition of social emergence it can be shown that relations are central factors of sociological explanations which can be found in Elias’ historical-sociological studies.?Keywords:Norbert Elias ? Ontology ? Methodology ? Third sociology ? Part-whole ? Methodological individualism ? Methodological relationalism ? Relational sociology ? Emergence ? Figuration ? Micro-macro     

From nation-state to global society: the changing paradigm of contemporary sociology

This paper discusses the strong criticism by Elias against the nation-state paradigm in sociology. Elias pointed his attention on sociologists of the twentieth century but particularly criticizes the analytical model of Parsons (AGIL), which seems to him an abstract combinatory of variables (pattern variables) without any references in social contexts. The sociology in the twentieth century is an apologetic of nation-state and, in Parsons, of the hegemonic role of the United States in the world. In fact, during the twentieth century many authors (historians and sociologists) tried to overcome the nation-state paradigm in the social sciences. The author of the paper analyses the contribution of Toynbee, Braudel, C. Schmitt, Huntington, Wallerstein and Hard–Negri. These attempts are based on different unit analysis: the civilization and its clash in the case of Toynbee and Huntington, the world economy in the case of Braudel and Wallerstein, and power in the case of C. Schmitt and Negri–Hardt. The author appreciates these attempts but his conclusion is that the concept of global society can better serve as unit analysis for a construction of a new paradigm in the social sciences.     

Habitus,social elevation,and the channel of shame‐fear: The decision to expand Guinness advertising

This article explains the relationship between social habitus, social mobility and shame feelings using Elias's theoretical frame of figurational sociology. Much work to date has centred on Bourdieu's theoretical formulations and while there are clear parallels with Elias, significant differences exist. Elias identified how shame functions as a key channel for the transmission of social tensions generated by the structure of social relations into the social habitus of individuals. We explain how apparently rational decision‐making in organisations obscures the emotional dynamics of shame and fear connected with processes of social elevation, habitus change and shifting power relations between social classes. Our empirical case concerns the brewer Arthur Guinness & Sons Ltd and the decision in 1927 to sanction a direct advertising campaign in Britain for the first time.     

Ilya Neustadt, Norbert Elias, and the Leicester Department: personal correspondence and the history of sociology in Britain

The central aims of this paper are: (1) to explore the utility of using personal correspondence as a source of data for sociological investigations into the history of sociology in the UK; (2) in relation to this undertaking, to advance the beginnings of a figurational analysis of epistolary forms; and (3), to provide an empirically-grounded discussion of the historical significance of the Department of Sociology at the University of Leicester (a University largely ignored in 'standard histories' of the subject) at a formative phase in the development of the discipline within the UK. The correspondence drawn upon in the paper is between Norbert Elias and Ilya Neustadt between 1962 and 1964 when Elias was Professor of Sociology at the University of Ghana and Ilya Neustadt was Professor of Sociology and Head of the Sociology Department at the University of Leicester. From an analysis of this correspondence, we elucidate an emergent dynamic to the relationship between Neustadt and Elias, one which, we argue, undergirds the development of sociology at Leicester and the distinctive character of the intellectual climate that prevailed there during the 1960s. The paper concludes with a consideration of whether it was a collapse of this dynamic that led to a total breakdown in the relationship between Neustadt and Elias, and by extension, an important phase in the expansion of sociology at Leicester.     

For a postcolonial sociology

Postcolonial theory has enjoyed wide influence in the humanities but it has left sociology comparatively unscathed. Does this mean that postcolonial theory is not relevant to sociology? Focusing upon social theory and historical sociology in particular, this article considers if and how postcolonial theory in the humanities might be imported into North American sociology. It argues that postcolonial theory offers a substantial critique of sociology because it alerts us to sociology’s tendency to analytically bifurcate social relations. The article also suggests that a postcolonial sociology can overcome these problems by incorporating relational social theories to give new accounts of modernity. Rather than simply studying non-Western postcolonial societies or only examining colonialism, this approach insists upon the interactional constitution of social units, processes, and practices across space. To illustrate, the article draws upon relational theories (actor-network theory and field theory) to offer postcolonial accounts of two conventional research areas in historical sociology: the industrial revolution in England and the French Revolution.     

Sociological discourse of the relational: the cases of Bourdieu & Latour1

Pierre Bourdieu's approach to sociology has been so widely recognized as being innovative that his innovations can be said to have been academically incorporated to the degree of having‐been‐innovative. On the other hand, the more recent work of Bruno Latour seems to offer a fresh innovative impetus to sociology. Over against Bourdieu's relational sociology, Latour's relationist sociology overcomes the subject‐object dichotomy, and abandons the notions of ‘society’ and ‘the social’. In this contribution, a comparison is made between the ideas of Bourdieu and Latour on the question of what sociology should look like, specifically focusing on their respective ideas on what can be called the relational. A Latourian critique of Bourdieu is provided, as well as a Bourdieusian analysis of Latourian sociology. Rather than ending up with two different ‘paradigms’, an attempt is made on the basis of Foucault's archaeology of discourse to view Bourdieusian and Latourian sociology as distinct positions within a discourse on the relational.     

Relational sociology and culture: a preliminary framework

In this paper I outline a framework for a relational sociology of culture. I begin by briefly defining relational sociology and contrasting it with both individualistic and holistic alternatives. Culture, I suggest, is an inherently relational concept and needs to be theorised and analysed as such. This argument is briefly elaborated through a discussion of the generation and diffusion of culture by way of interaction and social networks. The respective contributions of Tarde, Durkheim, Merleau-Ponty, and Wittgenstein are given particular attention. In the final part of the paper I introduce and discuss Howard Becker's notion of ‘art worlds’, drawing out and elaborating upon its relational foundations whilst also further developing it through a more sustained reflection upon both the facilitative potential of social networks and their shaping, as hypothesised by Peter Blau (and developed by Miller McPherson and Noah Mark), by way of homophilic attraction in ‘social space’. The paper covers a lot of ground and is intended as a sketch which subsequent work will fill out.     

Shifting frames: Collective action framing from a dialogic and relational perspective

This article discusses (a) sustained critiques of framing theory and of collective action frames, (b) the development and implications of a dialogic and relational alternative, and (c) suggestions for how to pursue this alternative approach using mental models. Proponents of framing theory have advocated that a dialogic and relational alternative could prove fruitful in advancing sociological understanding of the variety of contexts in which social movement discourse takes place. Drawing insights from the work of several scholars, I propose what this alternative entails in terms of both theory and research. Parallel to the development of relational sociology, academics have developed discourse mapping techniques that blend network analysis with cultural analysis. I suggest that one way researchers can integrate a dialogic and relational approach into their analyses of framing is through the use of mental models.     

Shame in Self and Society

This article proposes that shame is the master emotion of everyday life but is usually invisible in modern societies because of taboo. A review of shame studies suggests a taboo that results in denial and silence. The studies by Cooley, Freud, Elias, Lynd, Goffman, Lewis, and Tomkins have been largely ignored. Their work suggests a vital connection between shame and social life: shame can be seen as a signal of a threat to the bond. If so, understanding shame would be necessary for the study of social systems. The taboo on shame in English still holds: current usage, for the most part, assigns an intense and narrow singular meaning. This meaning offends, on the one hand, and misses the everyday function of shame, on the other. Perhaps the problem can be approached, as it is in traditional societies, by the use of a broader term, such as “bond affect” or “Shame.” Such a concept could lead to discovery of the emotional/relational world.     

Understanding Rural Social Class in an Era of Global Challenge

Social class is a foundational sociological concept that cuts across all domains of interest within rural sociology. Structured inequity rooted in social class and its intersectionalities also was the spark that drew many rural sociologists into the discipline. This article first considers definitions of social class and provides a rationale for its being the theme for the 2016 meetings of the Rural Sociological Society in Toronto, ON. It provides a brief sketch of social class in the rural and urban United States through an analysis of data from the General Social Survey. This leads into a discussion of four dimensions of social class that rural sociologists have helped to inform and on which more research is needed. These include class as a relational concept, class and economic livelihoods, expressions of class as signifiers of success, and the consequences of class stratification. Along the way, a sampling of RSS members are given voice as they describe in their own words the spark that ignited their pursuit of our discipline.     

Driving in a dead-end street: critical remarks on Andrew Abbott’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Processual Sociology</Emphasis>

In his book Processual Sociology (2016), Andrew Abbott proposes a radically new theoretical perspective for sociology. This review essay discusses the strengths and weaknesses of his “processual” approach, in comparison with other dynamic perspectives in sociology such as, in particular, Norbert Elias’s “process sociology.” It critically questions central ideas and arguments advanced in this book: the reduction of social processes to “events,” the focus on stability as the central explanandum of sociological theory, the implicit separation of individual and social processes, the proposition that the social world changes faster than the individual, the idea that “excess” rather than “scarcity” is the central problematic of human affairs, the strong emphasis on the inherent normativity of sociological concepts, the focus on values as the core of human social life, the neglect of human interdependence, power, coercion, and violence, and the distinction between “moral facts” and “empirical facts.” Detailed criticisms of the arguments in various chapters are given, and alternative viewpoints are proposed. The conclusion is that Processual Sociology fails to provide a fruitful approach for understanding and explaining social processes, and that it even represents, in several respects, theoretical regression rather than progress.     

Relational sociology,pragmatism, transactions and social fields

Starting from the idea that relational sociology has been founded on various and incompatible social ontologies, I argue that it is at risk of losing its raison d'être if we do not answer two fundamental practical and ontological questions: (1) Why do we need relational sociology? and (2) What do we study in relational sociology? In this respect, I propose a deep, transactional sociology partly and freely inspired by the work of J. Dewey which clearly detaches relational sociology from social determinism and co-determinism.     

Material civilization: things and society

This paper argues that although classical sociology has largely overlooked the importance of social relations with the material world in shaping the form of society, Braudel's concept of 'material civilization' is a useful way to begin to understand the sociological significance of this relationship. The limitations of Braudel's historical and general concept can be partially overcome with Elias's analysis of the connection between 'technization' and 'civilization' that allows for both a civilizing and a de-civilizing impact of emergent forms of material relation that both lengthen and shorten the chains of interdependence between the members of a society. It is suggested that the concept of the 'morality of things' employed by a number of commentators is useful in summarizing the civilizing effects of material objects and addressing their sociological significance. From the sociology of consumption the idea of materiality as a sign of social relationships can be drawn, and from the sociology of technology the idea of socio-technical systems and actor-networks can contribute to the understanding of material civilization. It is argued that the concept of 'material capital' can usefully summarize the variable social value of objects but to understand the complexity of material civilization as it unfolds in everyday life, an analysis of 'material interaction' is needed. Finally the paper suggests some initial themes and issues apparent in contemporary society that the sociological study of material civilization might address; the increased volume, functional complexity and material specificity of objects and the increased social complexity, autonomy and substitutability that is entailed. A theory of 'material civilization' is the first step in establishing a sociology of objects.     

How is disability understood? An examination of sociological approaches

This paper considers sociological understandings of what constitutes disability. Current meanings of disability in both disability studies and medical sociology are examined and compared, using selected articles from leading authors in each discipline as case studies. These disciplines are often represented as offering starkly contrasting approaches to disability, with their differences amounting to a disciplinary 'divide'. It is argued that, on closer inspection, common ground can be found between some writers in disability studies and medical sociology. It is suggested that this situation has arisen because, in disability studies, the social relational understanding of disability developed by Vic Finkelstein and Paul Hunt in the 1970s has been lost over time, overshadowed by the rise to prominence of its offspring: the social model of disability. The paper concludes with some reflections on the need to revive a social relational understanding of disability.     

Inventing the axial age: the origins and uses of a historical concept

The concept of the axial age, initially proposed by the philosopher Karl Jaspers to refer to a period in the first millennium BCE that saw the rise of major religious and philosophical figures and ideas throughout Eurasia, has gained an established position in a number of fields, including historical sociology, cultural sociology, and the sociology of religion. We explore whether the notion of an “axial age” has historical and intellectual cogency, or whether the authors who use the label of a more free-floating “axiality” to connote varied “breakthroughs” in human experience may have a more compelling case. Throughout, we draw attention to ways in which uses of the axial age concept in contemporary social science vary in these and other respects. In the conclusion, we reflect on the value of the concept and its current uses and their utility in making sense of human experience.     

Declining enrollments of sociology majors: Department responses

Although the number of social science majors is purported to have slightly increased since 1988, in the period immediately prior to that year the figure was declining. Sociology was one of the disciplines to experience this decline. The possible reasons for the reduction include the quality of the subject matter presentation, an increase in career-oriented students, and the loss of those students now majoring in social work and criminal justice who might otherwise have majored in sociology. University administrations facing reduction decisions in the coming years are not likely to look favorably on sociology departments unless those units can position themselves more favorably. Undergraduate sociology departments need to examine ways to strengthen their political positions on campus, such as developing service courses and cooperative arrangements with other programs; generating activities that are associated with public constituencies; and most important of all, learning to do something that university administrations need and perceive to be essential, and therefore are likely to protect. He is currently doing research on sports and education.     

Knowledge,boundaries, and bodies: Social construction between medical sociology and science and technology studies

Medical sociology and science and technology studies (STS) emerged from different positions, but often closely related concerns, within the broad discipline of sociology. Their interface and areas of overlap have mostly been shaped by theoretical positions broadly considered “social constructionist.” Taken together, these perspectives provide empirical and theoretical tools to analyze important questions about how social inequalities, forms of scientific knowledge, and patterns of human health come to be produced and feedback into one another. Examining their intersection enables sociological questions such as: How is medical and public health scientific knowledge produced, stabilized, and taken as fact? How are scientific facts about health and illness used, experienced, and challenged? What is the relationship between health inequalities and public health or medical knowledge? This article seeks to briefly trace the important contributions that social constructionist research has made at the interstices of medical sociology and STS, further clarifying the history, points of intersection, and areas of diversion between them. The current COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled the political struggles that constitute public health scientific knowledge and circulation. The interface between STS and medical sociology can help us to make sense of the interrelationships between politics, power inequalities, and public health scientific knowledge.     

Beyond Parallel Process: Relational Perspectives on Field Instruction

This article explores the implications of contemporary relational perspectives for transforming our understanding and use of the concept of parallel process in supervisory relationships in social work field instruction. We review the history of the concept of parallel process, summarize current relational views in psychodynamic supervision, and critique the social work literature in light of the paradigmatic shift to a relational, constructivist viewpoint. We present two vignettes illustrating how relational sensibilities enrich our understanding and increase the effectiveness of the field instruction relationship. We relocate parallel process, which up to now has been a primary, organizing framework in psychodynamic supervision, in a larger relational matrix, where it is one element in a complex, interactive process and serves as a marker for further exploration in reflective social work practice.     

Relational sociology: a well-defined sociological paradigm or a challenging ‘relational turn’ in sociology?

In this paper I present and summarize the theoretical proposals of four leading scholars of the so-called ‘relational sociology’. First of all I try to contextualize its emergence and developments in the increasingly globalized scientific system. From this particular (and international) point of view, relational sociology seems to develop through a peculiar scientific path opened and charted by well-identified actors and competitors, their invisible colleges, their global connections, cleavages, and coalitions. Whatever the structuring of this field, it accomplishes the criticism of classical individualistic and collectivistic sociological theories, a task strongly facilitated by the development of new methods and techniques of empirical research, and by the increasingly powerful computing capabilities. After this brief historical reconstruction, and following very strictly the contributions of the four scholars, I try to synthetize their theoretical designs, focusing the analysis on two scientific issues of great significance for the future of relational sociology: the specific ontology of ‘social relations’ and the methodologies used to observe it adequately. Finally, I wonder if we are facing a new sociological paradigm, already well structured and internationally established, or rather a ‘relational turn’ that probably will develop into a new ‘sociological field’ internally very differentiated and articulated.