A Theoretical Road Map for Applying Relational Sociology

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal

Relational sociology is based on the French and the German who first came to mind. It is important to note that Bourdieu and Elias are an introduction to relational sociology, although in the last 30 years different opinions or voices have been heard from America and Europe. For this purpose, following the process-based sociology of Bourdieu and Elias, Kivinen and Piiroinen (2013) were given to emphasize epistemology rather than ontology and to make it clear from metaphysical consideration. On the other hand, the work of White and his colleagues (2013) was handled in detail to represent relational sociological studies in the United States. As a result, the theoretical foundations of relational sociology under the metaphorical titles of three from Europe and one from America were tried to be explained in detail. In the conclusion part, relational sociology was made clear with some tables.

A Road Map for Applying Relational Sociology, 2019

Abstract Relational sociology is based on the French and the German who first came to mind. It is important to note that Bourdieu and Elias are an introduction to relational sociology, although in the last 30 years different opinions or voices have been heard from America and Europe. For this purpose, following the process-based sociology of Bourdieu and Elias, Kivinen and Piiroinen (2013) were given to emphasize epistemology rather than ontology and to make it clear from metaphysical consideration. On the other hand, the work of White and his colleagues (2013) was handled in detail to represent relational sociological studies in the United States. As a result, the theoretical foundations of relational sociology under the metaphorical titles of three from Europe and one from America were tried to be explained in detail. In the conclusion part, relational sociology was made clear with some tables. Key words: Relational sociology, epistemology, Turkey.

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.

Zhurnal Sotsiologii i Sotsialnoy Antropologii (The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology)

In this paper, the author presents his original version of relational sociology (critical realist relational sociology-CRRS), which is also called 'relational theory of society'. It shares with other versions of relational sociology the aim to understand social facts as relationally constituted entities stemming from the dialectic between structures and interactive processes. But it diff ers from the radically constructivist and relativistic versions (here referred to as 'relationist sociologies') as regards the way in which social relations are defi ned, the kind of reality that is attributed to them, how they confi gure social formations, and the ways in which they are generated (emergence) and changed (morphogenesis). Th e paper clarifi es the advantages that this original perspective off ers in explaining a series of social issues. In particular, 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 diff erent processes of valorization or devalorization of social relations. Ultimately, the task of this approach is to point to the possibility of envisaging those social relations that can better realize the humanity of social agents and give them the opportunity to achieve a good life.

Stan Rzeczy [State of Affairs], 2017

This article is an analysis of three original variants of relational sociology. Jan A. Fuhse’s conception, which is part of the tradition of social network research, situates network analyses in the context of connections between culture and symbolic forms and styles. Fuhse’s idea involves a communicative base of relations, and he perceives institutions as spheres of communication that reduce uncertainty and activate roles in the process of communication. François Dépelteau’s approach, which is inspired by Dewey’s pragmatism, recognizes transaction fields as configurations of relations forming interdependency between people. The practices of actors entering transactions within social fields are important, and this makes it possible for an impression of continuity, order, and complexity to be created. Pierpaolo Donati’s relational realism is an attempt to describe the relational dimensions of human actions, while at the same time it is a consistent “relationization” of key social categories, and is also useful in understanding after-modernity. This article emphasizes the fruitfulness of new attempts to demarcate sociological genealogies and to read the classics of relational sociology. The author discusses the creation of new puzzles for sociological theory, the necessity of analysing the ontologies of social life, the phenomena of emergency and agency, and the use of relational theory in regard to categories of the common good and social capital. He encourages multidimensional and multilevel analyses of social reality.

Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues, 2013

Taking social relations as the principle object for analysis, relational sociological models offer a conceptually sophisticated and analytically insightful alternative to actor-led theories on the one hand and more structurally inclined paradigms on the other. In recent years, recognition of the heuristic power of relational forms of analysis has grown to the point that relational sociology is now closer than ever to establishing itself as a powerful conceptual paradigm capable of competing on the global theoretical stage. Ostensibly, the greatest challenge facing proponents of relational sociology derives from an ‘outwardly’ facing relationship: between the degree of fit - or ‘reality congruence’ - of the theoretical concepts substantiating such a paradigm and the social actors, processes, figurations and phenomena it purports to explicate. Drawing upon a number of the theoretical ideas of two highly influential relational thinkers, Norbert Elias and Pierre Bourdieu, this paper argues that a far greater challenge confronts relational sociology from ‘within’ the sociological theoretical field itself - a field where symbolically violent and repressed struggles are enacted between rival forms of ‘theoretical group habitus’ which compete to assert the legitimacy of their antagonistic conceptions of social reality in the guise of an allegedly ‘civilized’, ‘rational’ and ‘value-free’ dialogue.

From networks to fields to figurations to discourses, relational ideas have become common in social science, and a distinct relational sociology has emerged over the past decade and a half. But so far, this paradigm shift has raised as many questions as it answers. Just what are 'relations', precisely? How do we observe and measure them? How does relational thinking change what we already know about society? What new questions does it invite us to ask? This volume and its companion volume Applying Relational Sociology: Networks, Relations, and Society bring together, for the first time, the leading experts and up-and-coming scholars in the field to address fundamental questions about what relational sociology is and how it works.

The category of paradigm appears, apparently contrary to Kuhn and his commentators' intentions , usually as a marker of dissimilarities within the discipline's standards, a prop substantiated on the stage, similar to Homans' stimulus from the second social exchange proposition: its presence, in whatever form compatible with the stimulus generalization rule, is concurrent with activity leading to success. Leaving aside the question if any science can be normal (according to Kuhn), the main issue is to decide whether the science/scientific discipline creates a common theoretical reference system, a framework organizing the practices of its agents. In case of sociology we usually speak of its multiparadigmatic character, which describes a situation when there are various theoretical-research perspectives achieving the paradigm status, with mutually rivaling views on the social world and its proper investigative strategies, at the same time stimulating the quality that is considered a development, or respectively, increased creativity within the disciplinary matrix. Adapting a slightly subsequent stylistics, what is important is if there are being formed scientific research programs that would promise not only codification of scientific knowledge, but also positive problem shifting (see: Lakatos 1970), signifying a change within management of scientific production (see , or reorganizing the sphere of key issues, both the ones firmly embedded in sociological tradition, and the ones that fuel dynamics of the contemporary theoretical debates.

article, 2017

Margaret S. Archer and Pierpaolo Donati have independently devel- oped relational approaches in the social sciences. Combining morphoge- netic theory and the relational theory of society opens up new research perspectives. This article attempts to investigate relational conceptions of culture by answering two questions: one related to the nature of culture and the other to the place of culture in relational sociology. Assuming the complementarity of the theories of both sociologists, the possibility that their conceptions may be inconsistent or even contradict each other is not discounted. The article discusses the issue of symbolization and the presence of processes of semiosis within relational sociology. It is argued that apart from the Cultural System and the Socio-Cultural interaction as- sumed by Archer’s analytical dualism, a more general category of Cultural Reality can be introduced. This theme is further discussed in the light of Donati’s views on human reality; he postulates including the relational frame of symbolization. Analysis shows that culture occupies a central place in relational sociology. This article exposes the complexity of the nature of culture in human reality.

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 reside 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 social relations are generated (emergence) and changed (morphogenesis). In particular, this approach is suited to understanding how the morphogenesis of society comes about through social relations, which are the mediators between agency and social structure. The generative mechanisms that feed social change lie in the dynamics of the networks of social relations (not simply networks of nodes), which alter the molecular composition constituting structures already in place. The scope of CRRS is threefold. Theoretically, it can orient social research toward unseen and/or immaterial realities (the same relations are intangibles). Empirically, it can show how new social forms/formations are created, transformed, or destroyed depending on different processes of valorization or devalorization of social relations. Finally, it can help us design and implement social policies and welfare services based on networking interventions.