Relations-In-Process: In Honour of François Depelteau

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.

In this paper I argue for a theoretical comparison between Pierpaolo Donati's Relational Theory of Society (also called 'Relational Sociology'), and the theoretical proposal of Jan Fuhse's Relational Sociology. It focuses on two main issues: 1) Epistemology -the «Relational Sociology» paradigm; 2) Ontology -what the social relation consists of.

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.

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.

Stan Rzeczy, 2017

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 Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues 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.

Review of Conceptualizing Relational Sociology, edited by Christopher Powell and François Depelteau, Palgrave MacMillan, 240pp., 2013 and Applying Relational Sociology, edited by François Depelteau and Christopher Powell, Palgrave MacMillan, 229pp., 2013.

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.

British Journal of Sociology, 2009

This paper explores Bourdieu's account of a relational social space, and his relative neglect of social interaction within this framework. Bourdieu includes social capital as one of the key relational elements of his social space, but says much less about it than economic or cultural capital, and levels of social capital are rarely measured in his work. Bourdieu is reluctant to focus on the content of social networks as part of his rejection of substantialist thinking. The neglect of substantive networks creates problems for Bourdieu's framework, because many of Bourdieu's core concepts rest upon assumptions about their interactional properties (in particular, the prevalence of homophilous differential association) which are left unexamined. It is argued here that Bourdieu's neglect of the substance of social networks is related to the criticisms that Bourdieu's framework often encounters, and that this neglect bears re-examination, since it is helpful to think of the ways in which differentiated social networks contribute to the development of habitus, help form fields, and so constitute the intersubjective social relations within which sociality, and practice more generally, occur.