Download Relational

Lectures on
Relational Sociology:
basics & advancements
Pierpaolo Donati
University of Bologna
1
Basic texts
P. DONATI, Sociologia della relazione, il
Mulino, Bologna, 2013
P. DONATI, Sociologia relazionale.
Come cambia la società, La Scuola,
Brescia, 2013.
2
Foundations of the relational paradigm
(social ontology, epistemology and methodology)
1. SOCIAL ONTOLOGY:
REALISM characterized by being:
- Critical (vs positivist, materialist or naïve/direct realism)
- Analytical (vs empiricist ontologies, ontological empiricism)
- Relational (vs ‘essentialist’ ontologies)
(Its main adversary is radical constructionism, which claims that: ‘The
real is what knowledge indicates as real’ or ‘reality is the same
observation’)
(substance and relation are co-principles of all that exists)
3
Foundations of the relational paradigm
2. EPISTEMOLOGY
Knowledge is achieved with/through relations
(in parallel to the fact that «we do not see the light, but we see [the world]
with/through the light»)
This epistemology follows the ontological assumption according to which:
At the beginning (of every social fact) there is a relation
(not self-standing entities or aggregates of single factors, be they individuals
or systems)
Individuals & systems (structures) are relationally constituted (by mediating
relations)
4
Foundations of the relational paradigm
3. METHODOLOGY
• Neither holism
(because it reduces the human person to a product of
structures; the whole  the parts),
• nor methodological individualism
(because it reduces the human person to the ‘individual’,
whereas the agent (s/he) is an individual-in-relation)
• But RELATIONAL ANALYSIS (rules, research design, relational
tools)
(cf. P. Donati, L’analisi relazionale: regole, quadro metodologico, esempi, in Id. (ed.),
Sociologia. Una introduzione allo studio della società, Padova, 2006, 195-251).
5
The epistemic gain
By means of RS, we gain insight into some of the crucial sociological issues
that underpin:
•
the micro/macro link (because we can introduce the meso level)
For instance: we can see social capital neither as an individual endowment
(e.g. an instrumental means), nor as a cultural system (e.g. civic culture),
but as a quality and property of a social network (generating trust, cooperation,
reciprocity, i.e. social capital as a sui generis social relation)
•
the structure/agency dialectics (because we can see how this dialectics
is mediated by the social networks that are responsible for the
morphostasis/morphogenesis of both structure & agency)
For instance: structure and agency change not because they are directly
enmeshed (see Giddens’ central conflation criticized by Archer), but because they
both operate via/through their relations, which constitute a different
order of reality (‘the order of social relations’, different from the structural
and agential orders)
On morphostasis/morphogenesis, see: M.S. Archer, Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic
Approach, CUP, Cambridge, 1995
6
7
.. more on epistemic gains
• We can see social change in a different mode: neither as a
product of individuals factors (motivations, attitudes, values,
etc.), nor as a product of systemic factors (mechanisms
pertaining to the ‘whole’), but as a product of the
differentiation of social relations
(cf. Viviane Zelizer (2012), ‘How I Became a Relational Economic Sociologist
and What Does That Mean?’, Politics & Society, vol. 40, no. 2: 145-174)
• We can see why and how relations have their own internal
logic and operations
• So we can see how social relations produce new forms of
social differentiation (beyond the segmentary, stratified
& functional forms) in terms of relational differentiation
8
What is the ‘relational turn’
… it is a view of contemporary (networking) society
that changes the classical and modern logics.
The relational paradigm changes:
1) the principle of identity (Aristotle)
2) the dialectic of distinction (in its different guises: Hegelian,
system/environment and Spencer Brown logics)
9
The three semantics of identity
with which social theory can work
classical
monistic
A=A
Basic semantics
modern
after-modern
dualistic
A = not (notA)
relational
A = R (A, notA)
More extensively (the identity of A in a networks of relations):
A = R [ri (A, notA)]
[R=relation to the ri relations that A has with its external world;
It can be conceived in terms of relational reflexivity of A]
10
What is a social relation?
(how can we define R?)
• 1° semantics) Re-ligo (bond or structural connection:
Emile Durkheim)
• 2° semantics) Re-fero (simbolic reference: Max Weber)
• 3° semantics) Emerging phenomenon (relation as an
emergent: Simmel’s Wechselwirkung or ‘effect of
reciprocity’, the ‘Third’ created by the exchange or,
better, reciprocal action between Ego and Alter)
11
Relational sociology combines
the three semantics together
(relation at the micro level)
Legenda:
A = means of the relation
G = target/goal
I = norms of coordination
L = (latent cultural) value
(worth of the relation)
first semantics
(refero)
G
A
R
E
F
R E L I G O
E
R
O
L
I
EMERGENT
(third semantics)
second semantics
(religo)
12
At the macro (meso) levels
G
State
(apparatuses)
A
Market
(firms)
I
Civil society
(associations)
L
Culture
(life worlds)
13
What can we see with/through this definition of
‘the social as a relation’?
Four empirical examples
• 1° example) We can see new social goods (relational
goods) which are neither private nor public
• 2° ex.) We can see new citizenship rights (relational
rights) that are not civil, political or social rights
• 3° ex.) We can identify a new area of welfare policies
(civil welfare) beyond the compromise between market
& state
• 4° ex.) We can see the emergence of differentiated
social forms of free giving beyond ‘charities’
14
1° ex.) The existence of social goods which are
neither public nor private
(in the modern sense of these categories)
Antonine Wagner has presented
a theory of social goods that lacks the L dimension
TYPES OF GOODS
Non competitive
Competitive
consumption
consumption
Non
sovereign
consumer
PUBBLIC
GOODS
(G = State)
COLLECTIVE
GOODS
(I = Voluntary
sector)
Sovereign
consumer
?
(L)
PRIVATE
GOODS
(A = Market)
15
RELATIONAL THEORY CAN FILL THE EMPTY
BOX (L) AND REDEFINE THE TYPOLOGY
Non competitive
Competitive
consumption
consumption
Non
sovereign
consumer
PUBBLIC GOODS
(G = state)
COLLECTIVE
RELATIONAL GOODS
(I = associational,
social private spheres)
Lib-lab
Sovereign
consumer
PRIMARY
RELATIONAL
GOODS
(L = families &
informal networks)
PRIVATE GOODS
(A = capitalist
market)
16
2° ex.) The complex of citizenship rights
T. H. Marshall’s theory on citizenship rights
(which were supposed to develop in indian file/linear
sequence A->G->I, but lack the L dimension)
G
Political rights
A
Civil rights
I
Social rights
(welfare)
L
(?)
17
The relational theory can fill the (unseen, underconceptualized) L dimension and
redefine the emergent complex of rights
G
Political rights
A
Civil rights
(free market)
I
Social rights
(social welfare)
L
Human rights
(life-worlds)
(these are ‘relational rights’, i.e. rights to human relations,
since the human person is an individual-in-relation)
18
3° ex.) Relational theory can see a fourth kind of welfare
policies (civil welfare) beyond the classical typology by
Titmuss
Richard Titmuss’ classical theory on welfare policies
identifies types 1,2,3 (G,A,L)
but obscures the social integration dimension (I):
1)
2)
3)
4)
Institutional Welfare (G) is up to the state
Acquisitive-Meritocratic Welfare (A) is up to the market
Residual Welfare (L) is up to families & informal networks
Anything else? What about welfare in the social integration
dimension (I)? Up to whom?
19
TYPES OF WELFARE POLICIES
ACCORDING TO THE RELATIONAL THEORY
Welfare
within the markets
(profit & no profit)
System
(Lib-Lab)
welfare
policies
Social
integration
welfare
policies
(production
of relational
goods)
Welfare
outside the market
(A) Acquisitive(G) Institutional
meritocratic welfare
welfare (state)
(for profit) System integration
(I) Civil welfare
(third sector &
prosocial private
organizations)
(L) Informal welfare
(families & informal
networks)
Social integration
20
4° ex.) The relational theory can see the emergence
of free giving in differentiated social forms
Classical theory (M. Mauss) views free giving:
(i) in primitive societies, as an archaic form of social
exchange
(ii) in modern times, as a form of charity by the state or
by voluntary organizations to the poor
BUT, in contemporary society, free giving emerges as a
highly differentiated form of feeding new social
relations  (next)
21
Differentiation of free giving and gratuitousness in contemporary society
examples:
G (as a goal)
WS benefits &
Free giving aimed
economy of communion at system integration (welfare state)
or as an investment (foundations)
A (as a means)
Free giving
as a means of production
(within the market and
the marketable third sector)
I (as a social bond)
Free giving
aimed at social integration
(within voluntary organizations,
associations & social networks)
L (as a value in itself)
examples:
Free giving/gratuitousness
cyber-commons &
for the value of human relation
crowdfunding, etc.
(informal voluntary work and
start up of collective actions
for the production of relational goods)
Area A-G = area of interests
Area L-I = area of identities
P. Donati, Giving and Social Relations: The Culture of Free Giving and its Differentiation Today, in
“International Review of Sociology”, vol. 13, n. 2, 2003, pp. 243-272.
22
In order to capture the reality and the making
of new social relations we need an adequate
relational analysis
rules,
research design,
methodological tools
to see social relations
as generative mechanisms
and
targets for applied (professional) sociology
Cf. P. Donati, L’analisi relazionale: regole, quadro metodologico, esempi,
in Id. (ed.), Sociologia, Cedam, Padova, 2006, pp. 195-251.
23
Two basic points: first
1) Relational analysis looks at social networks as networks of social relations,
not only as networks of nodes
Notice the difference
A network of 3 nodes has 3 relations
Ego
Alter
Third
A network of relations among 3 nodes has 9 relations
(of first, second, and third order)
Ego
Alter
Third
24
Two basic points: second
2) The observation should be relational, which means
that the social relation should be seen as a generative mechanism:
O (observer)
socio-cultural
structures in which
A
is embedded
(AGIL of A’s action)
A
B
(AGIL of B’s action)
socio-cultural
structures in which
B
is embedded
Y
(AGIL of the relation
between A and B)
For the analysis of the matrices of the bond-indicators (in both
personal and full networks) according to the AGIL scheme, see:
L. Tronca, Sociologia relazionale e social network analysis. Analisi
delle strutture sociali, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2013.
25
The generative mechanism which transforms society
lies in the added (or subtracted) value of the emerging social relations (Y)
(precisely because it produces emergents in the networks:
ex. more/less social capital)
T1 ― Starting network
Social capital as dependent variable (explanandum)
T2 ― Interactions within the network: the dynamics of the network
of relations produces interactions (more or less reflexive) which
generate or consume social capital
─ T3
Social capital as indipendent variable (explanans)
T4 ― Emergent network with its properties, qualities and effects:
social capital has changed (increased or decreased, having
Time
produced relational goods or relational evils, etc.)
On the morphogenetic process see: M.S. Archer (ed.), Social Morphogenesis, Springer, 2013
26
In the phase T2-T3,
social relations change the value of social capital,
which may be increased (value added)
or decreased (subtracted value)
in so far as
the order of relations has been changed
by the order of interactions
in the cycle (T1-T4)
27
Comparing relational and
relationistic sociologies
Relationistic
(transactional) sociologies:
Relational
(emergentist) sociologies:
do not see the emergent
(Y in the previous figure)
maintain that relations
generate structures
that have no power
(Emirbayer, Dépelteau)
see the emergent reality
(Y in the previous figure)
claim that relations (as
structures) have peculiar
causal powers
(Archer, Donati)
28
The ‘molecular’ structure of social relation
as a generative mechanism:
(a ‘molecule’ is what specifies the qualities and properties of a stuff/entity/matter)
29
The perspective by M.S. Archer
«Every social phenomenon comes in a SAC interplay
(Structure, Agency, Culture)» - which I share can be WRITTEN in the following way (micro level):
Social order (SAC)
(relational & interactional)
Conditioning
structure
Agent1
(agency1)
C
U
L
S T R UCTT U R E
U
R
E
Legenda (composition
of the relation):
Structure = means  norms
Culture = value   goal
ORDER OF
RELATION
Conditioning structure
Agent2
(agency2)
ORDER OF
INTERACTION
BLACK BOX
EMERGENT
30
as a social molecule (elaborated structure),
the social relation is formed when
a peculiar molecular bond between the elements is realized
(by pure analogy with the molecular bond in water H2O)
This bond is the form of the social relation
31
examples:
 the relation employer-worker;
 the relation teacher-pupil;
 the relation doctor-patient;
 the couple relation;
 the relation producer-consumer;
 the relation seller-buyer;
 voter-elected;
etc.
32
The basic reason for the peculiarities of the relational paradigm lies in the
fact that it brings into play the latent reality of the social and therefore it
makes the relation a matter of emergence and instantiation (Peirce)
G
(‘political’)
A-G Area of interests
(representable)
A
I
(‘economic’)
(‘social’)
L-I area of identities
(only appresentable)
L (‘values’)
(here are the ‘boundaries with the human’,
i.e. the latent reality which should be
represented and appresented)
The social molecule of the modern relation
(or the modern ‘relational organization’ of social relations)
 next
The social molecule of the after-modern relation
(or the after-modern ‘relational organization’ of social relations)
 next
34
The social molecule produced by modern society
is constituted by four base-elements
that are combined together:
G) the target or goal of the social relation is to pursue any new
achievement by freeing the individuals from all ascriptive constraints
(agency should be made maximally contingent through functional
social differentiation);
A) the means is ‘money’ (currency) as the tool which can produce
variety by exchanging anything with anything else (universal
equivalent);
I) the norms regulate the production of variety through competition;
L) the value of the relation is its in-difference toward unconditional
values (i.e., its polytheism of values)
= the relation assesses reality on the basis of values that are always
negotiable and fungible, i.e. functionally equivalent to other values
35
36
The social molecule of the after-modern society is constituted by four
base-elements that are combined together:
G) the social relation’s target/goal is to select variations according to
the type and degree of relationality that they entail;
A) the means for achieving the goal must be such as to allow for the
production of relational goods (they must promote a network of
social exchanges that confer a relationally satisfying identity upon
the agents/actors);
I) The logic (norms) is relational, which means that it promotes metareflexivity in so far as the rules involve the search for a non-fungible
quality in social relations (these are relations that cannot be
exchanged for other relations);
L) the value of the relation working as guiding principle lies is its
difference in terms of ‘what value’ it represents (the selection of the
variety to be chosen is evaluated on the basis of the meaningful
experiences that the agent can obtain in contrast to what can be
offered by other types of relations)
37
38
Figure 3 - The passage from modernity to after-modernity as the turning point
of its social molecule’s relational structure.
After(trans)modernity
Area
TPSMG
Modernity
of
BP
collapse of the
modern relation
Legend:
BP = breaking point [when the social disasters induced by the principle of
functional (monetary) equivalence as mechanism of interchange and
convertibility of everything into anything else are foreseen]
TP = turning point (passage from the modern social molecule to the aftermodern social molecule through the adoption of a principle of functional nonequivalence)
Area of SMG = the part of society in which the modern social molecule is
destructured, and the after-modern molecule arises, which gains ground in the
social spheres in which the principle of monetary equivalence no longer
functions and is replaced by principles of relational value (area of societal
morphogenesis)
39
Introducing the distinction between:
Structural effects
(constraints on actors and their relations)
for instance: the functional division of labour forces
work and private/family life to separate and specialize
Relational effects
(outcomes of networks dynamics)
for instance: by networking the labour market
and family life a relational division of labour can
link and balance – i.e. reconcile – them
40
An example of recent advancements is the
understanding of a new form of social
differentiation
• Beyond the three well known types of social
differentiation (segmentary, stratified and functional)
• What emerges is the relational differentiation
(ex. The birth of new family forms by reorganizing the
division of labour between the market and family life)
41
Relational sociology is based upon a social
ontology and epistemology (including
methodology), but it asserts also a pragmatics
(applied sociology)
Pragmatics consists in networking,
or network interventions for solving social issues
on the basis of the following assumptions:
1) Since social issues (in a specific context) stem from a
peculiar dynamics of social relations and their outcomes,
1) Then: the remedial interventions must be sought in the
modification of social relations (the social network),
2) by relying upon the ‘natural potentials’ of social groups (i.e.
relational networks), through indirect (not direct)
interventions [called relational steering]
42
Examples
• Relational social work (F. Folgheraiter, Relational Social Work. Toward
Networking and Societal Practices, J. Kingsley, London, 2004;
F. Powell, The Professional Challenger of Reflexive Modernization, Social Work
in Ireland, in “British Journal of Social Work”, vol. 28, 1998, pp. 311-28)
• Reflexive teams (T. Andersen (ed.) (1991), The Reflecting Team: Dialogues
and Dialogues About the Dialogues, W. W. Norton & Company, New York).
• Family group conferences (J. Seikkula and T.M.Arnkil (2006), Dialogical
Meet Social Networks, Karnac Books, London)
• Peer-2peer production (M. Bauwens)
•Co-production (V. Pestoff, Co-production: The state of the Art in Research
and Future Agenda, Voluntas. 23 (4), 2012).
• Relational services/relational social policies, …
• Relational State, …
•Etc.
43
An example of how to apply the scheme
44
The emergence of co-production
Network 1
(traditional delivery of services)
Regular
producer
consumer
Individual feedback
Networks with relations based
upon positive/negative feedbacks
(personal reflexivity)
Network 2
(co-production)
Public
services
co
Communi
ties of
citizens
Relational feedback
Networks with relations based
upon relational feedbacks
(relational reflexivity)
45
The analytical dimensions of the ‘Value’ of something/someone (the added value can be
measured as the enhancement obtained in various dimensions:
A) in the economic exchange;
G) in using something/someone to meet needs;
I) in the social relation that is activated or stimulated as an active bond that offers new
relational opportunities and resources;
L) in enhancing the dignity of something/someone.
46
Conclusions
• The relational paradigm is susceptible of
wider developments….
• …. on the condition that the social sciences
can enter ‘into’ the social relation (its
structure & dynamics)…
• … what makes society more and more
complex is the emergence of social relations
(the future depends on the dialectic between ‘virtual’ vs
‘real’ relations, see digital or smart cities, web 3.0, etc.)
47
Further readings
P. Donati, Relational Sociology. A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences,
Routledge, London and New York, 2011
P. Donati, Morphogenesis and Social Networks: Relational Steering not
Mechanical Feedback, in M.S. Archer (ed.), Social Morphogenesis,
Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 205-231.
P. Donati, Morphogenic Society and the Structure of Social Relations, in
M.S. Archer (ed.), Late Modernity. Trajectories towards Morphogenic
Society, Springer, New York, 2014, pp. 143-172.
48