* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Lectures on Relational Sociology - Relational Studies in Sociology
Structuration theory wikipedia , lookup
Social contract wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Social Darwinism wikipedia , lookup
Community development wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Social network (sociolinguistics) wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Social exclusion wikipedia , lookup
Social network analysis wikipedia , lookup
Social computing wikipedia , lookup
History of social work wikipedia , lookup
Social theory wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Social network wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
Social group wikipedia , lookup
Lectures on Relational Sociology: basics & advancements What can we see more and better? 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 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