DOCSLIB.ORG

From Simmel to Relational Sociology 1. Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Simmel to Relational Sociology 1. Introduction This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. From Simmel to Relational Sociology Sophie Mützel and Lisa Kressin Abstract Georg Simmel (1858-1918), who is widely regarded as one of the classics and intellectual grandfathers of sociology, has written on a variety of topics from several disciplinary perspectives. Yet despite the breadth and richness of his work, current sociology typically focuses only on individual dimensions. On the one hand, Simmel’s work is seen as foundational to a formal sociology, which is at the core of social network analysis. On the other hand, Simmel’s works on cultural issues yield astute analyses of modernity, which is why they are classics in the sociology of culture. However, such one-dimensional interpretations of Simmel’s work appear limited and in turn do not sufficiently capture his influence on the field of sociology. This chapter claims that the separated readings of the “two Simmels” need to be brought together to make full analytical use of Simmel’s most important heuristic distinction: form and content. Moreover, we will show that relational sociology of the past four decades has moved in that direction by taking the interrelation of structure and meaning seriously. Keywords Simmel, Form, Content, Social Network Analysis, Relational Sociology 1. Introduction Probably unique among his sociological contemporaries, Simmel explored time and time again the world of everyday social interactions and their cultural manifestations. [...] Not only does Simmel claim that sociology should study the 'microscopic-molecular' processes within human interaction and hence justifiably study micro-sociology as well as the study of major social structures and formations, but he also asserts that such an investigation will produce a 'deeper and more accurate' understanding of society and, we might add here, equally of cultural formations. Frisby & Featherstone, 2006, p. 9 Georg Simmel (1858-1918), who is widely regarded as one of the classics and intellectual grandfathers of sociology, has written on a variety of topics from several disciplinary perspectives. Yet despite the breadth and richness of his work, current sociology typically focuses only on individual dimensions. On the one hand, Simmel’s work is seen as foundational to a formal sociology, which is at the core of social network analysis (SNA). On the other hand, Simmel’s works on a wide range of cultural issues, including e.g. his treatise on money (Simmel, 2004) or on the modern city (Simmel, 1950d), yield astute analyses of modernity, which is why they are classics in 1 1a128a98-18c4-461a-9a48-9ae4e72d6a1a This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. the sociology of culture. However, such one-dimensional interpretations of Simmel’s work appear limited and in turn do not sufficiently capture his influence on the field of sociology (e.g. Beer, 2019; Dahme & Rammstedt, 1995; Frisby, 2011; Goetschel & Silver, 2019; Goodstein, 2017; Häußling, 2010; Kaern, Phillips, & Cohen, 1990; Mozetic, 2017; Pyyhtinen, 2018). Building on these insights, this chapter argues that the two-stranded reading of Simmel of contemporary and past sociology leads to a one-dimensional use of his work. Moreover, we claim that the separated readings of the “two Simmels” need to be brought together to make full analytical use of Simmel’s most important heuristic distinction: form and content. This distinction needs to be treated as a duality instead of a contradiction (e.g. Lizardo, 2019). We will show that relational sociology of the past four decades has moved in that direction by taking the interrelation of structure and meaning seriously. We argue that further use of Simmel’s duality of form and content will yield additional analytical depths and insights. Relational sociology, as an analytical approach, offers an alternative to substantialist works of a sociology that understands the social mostly in terms of its “fixed entities with variable attributes” (Abbott, 1988; Emirbayer, 1997, p. 286). It also tries to emancipate itself from its analytic roots in structural analysis. Instead of single interactions, the focus lies on the dynamic relations between social entities that shape social formations. At the same time, relational sociology does not aim for deterministic macro- analysis; from a relational perspective, structure emerges from “unfolding, ongoing processes” (Emirbayer, 1997, p. 289), which result from an individual’s capacity for agency and involvement in the construction of meaning. To be sure, relational sociology unites basic concepts of understanding the social while drawing on different sociological traditions (e.g. Crossley, 2015; Dépelteau, 2015; Emirbayer, 1997; Mische, 2011). In this chapter, we will mainly focus on Simmel’s enduring influence on the school of relational sociology, which combines social network and cultural analysis. The development of this specific field of relational sociology is driven by empirical studies as well as an elaborated toolkit of methods, which are based in network and often text analysis (e.g. Mische, 2011; Mützel, 2009; Pachucki & Breiger, 2010). In addition to being deeply embedded in the same relational thinking that drives Simmel’s understanding of society and social life, adding elements of meaning to a formerly culture-free, structural network analysis (White, 1992), relational sociology implicitly draws on the main distinction made by Simmel: form and content. An interest in the combination of both form and content has pushed the development of a relational sociology rooted in network analysis since the 1990s. In that sense, Simmel is not only a classic of relational 2 1a128a98-18c4-461a-9a48-9ae4e72d6a1a This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. thinking in his works on form but also in his work on the relations of content, that is meaning. This chapter offers a genealogy of concepts, which have moved from Simmel to formal to relational sociology via a path of social network analysis as well as a path of cultural analysis. The focus is in particular on U.S. and European sociology. Thus, this chapter contributes to ongoing discussions on the interrelation of structure and meaning in relational sociology and underscores Simmel’s foundational thinking on the duality of form and content. 2. Simmel’s Sociology [S]ociety is for Simmel only a result of the relations among individuals and groups, something that has to be produced and connected rather than always being there (Pyyhtinen, 2018, p. 24). Georg Simmel, born in 1858 in Berlin, is known as one of the founders of sociology: He fundamentally contributed to the definition of sociology’s jurisdiction as a discipline and was one of the founders and board members of the German Sociological Association in 1909.1 Yet despite his ideational and institutional importance for German sociology, he was never granted a full and permanent professorship in sociology. Instead, he died as full professor in philosophy in Strasbourg in 1918 (Wolff, 1950, xviii). In academic circles, Simmel was well known as a Berlin intellectual and lecturer. At the same time, he was seen as an eclectic academic, prolifically writing on a variety of issues from different backgrounds, including sociology, philosophy, psychology, and history. This, in turn, made it difficult for Simmel to obtain a full professorship in one discipline. Additionally, Simmel was facing the anti-Semitic resentments of his time (Jung, 2016). Simmel understood science as empirical and non-normative. Scientific knowledge was not to be discovered with a practical or normative goal in mind, but as an end in itself (Dahme, 1995). Defining sociology as a science in that sense, while also writing on “personal ‘attitudes towards the world in the language of a view of life’” (Dahme, 1995, p. 225, own translation) however meant a constant crossing of disciplinary boundaries for Simmel. By his own definitions, he was a sociologist and philosopher.2 1 After only three years of membership, Simmel and colleagues, such as Max Weber and Werner Sombart, left the association again due to opposing opinions on the question of Werturteilsfreiheit (Nedelmann, 2007, p. 75). 2 Dahme elaborates on Simmel’s differentiation between science and philosophy, and the blurring of this boundary over the years of his writing. While Simmel’s definition of formal sociology followed a rather positivistic notion of science, he 3 1a128a98-18c4-461a-9a48-9ae4e72d6a1a This manuscript will be part of the forthcoming The Handbook of Classical Sociological Theory, edited by Seth Abrutyn and Omar Lizardo. Contrary to his standing in German academia, in the U.S. Simmel was “in the unusual position of being the only European scholar who has had a palpable influence on sociology […] throughout the course of the 20th century” (Levine, Carter, & Miller Gorman, 1976, p. 813). Translated from German and published as early as 1893 in journals such as The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science and The American Journal of Sociology, Simmel’s works on “The Problem of Sociology” (Simmel, 1909), “The Persistence of Social Groups” (Simmel, 1898), “The Chapter of the Philosophy of Value” (Simmel, 1900), “The Number of Members as Determining the Sociological Form of the Group” (Simmel, 1902a, 1902b), or “The Sociology of Conflict” (Simmel, 1904a, 1904b, 1904c) were accessible in English. Thus, Simmel was very visible and influential in early U.S. Sociology (Small, 1902). He also had a “prominent position” (Wolff, 1950, xxiv) in Park’s and Burgess’ (1922) textbook with several contributions, including “The Sociological Significance of the ‘Stranger’”, “Sociology of the Senses: Visual Interaction”, and “The Metropolis and Mental Life”. In the 1950s, Simmel was re-translated and re- discovered in U.S. Sociology by the second generation of Chicago School members, structural sociologists and their intellectual kin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relational Analysis and the Ethnographic Approach : Constructing Preschool Childhood
    This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Raittila, Raija; Vuorisalo, Mari Title: Relational analysis and the ethnographic approach : constructing preschool childhood Year: 2021 Version: Published version Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Rights: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Rights url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Please cite the original version: Raittila, R., & Vuorisalo, M. (2021). Relational analysis and the ethnographic approach : constructing preschool childhood. Ethnography and Education, 16(3), 358-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2021.1872396 Ethnography and Education ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reae20 Relational analysis and the ethnographic approach: constructing preschool childhood Raija Raittila & Mari Vuorisalo To cite this article: Raija Raittila & Mari Vuorisalo (2021): Relational analysis and the ethnographic approach: constructing preschool childhood, Ethnography and Education, DOI: 10.1080/17457823.2021.1872396 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2021.1872396 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 21 Jan 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reae20 ETHNOGRAPHY AND EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2021.1872396 Relational analysis and the ethnographic approach: constructing preschool childhood Raija Raittila and Mari Vuorisalo Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This article elaborates the relational ontology in an ethnographic Relational sociology; study.
    [Show full text]
  • Centennial Bibliography on the History of American Sociology
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Sociology Department, Faculty Publications Sociology, Department of 2005 Centennial Bibliography On The iH story Of American Sociology Michael R. Hill [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, and the Social Psychology and Interaction Commons Hill, Michael R., "Centennial Bibliography On The iH story Of American Sociology" (2005). Sociology Department, Faculty Publications. 348. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/348 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Department, Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Hill, Michael R., (Compiler). 2005. Centennial Bibliography of the History of American Sociology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. CENTENNIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SOCIOLOGY Compiled by MICHAEL R. HILL Editor, Sociological Origins In consultation with the Centennial Bibliography Committee of the American Sociological Association Section on the History of Sociology: Brian P. Conway, Michael R. Hill (co-chair), Susan Hoecker-Drysdale (ex-officio), Jack Nusan Porter (co-chair), Pamela A. Roby, Kathleen Slobin, and Roberta Spalter-Roth. © 2005 American Sociological Association Washington, DC TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: Each part is separately paginated, with the number of pages in each part as indicated below in square brackets. The total page count for the entire file is 224 pages. To navigate within the document, please use navigation arrows and the Bookmark feature provided by Adobe Acrobat Reader.® Users may search this document by utilizing the “Find” command (typically located under the “Edit” tab on the Adobe Acrobat toolbar).
    [Show full text]
  • Formalist and Relationalist Theory in Social Network Analysis
    Formalist and Relationalist Theory in Social Network Analysis Emily Erikson Yale University 17 March 2011 Draft Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Peter Bearman, Scott Boorman, Richard Lachmann, David Stark, Nicholas Wilson, the participants of Boston University’s Society, Politics & Culture Workshop, and Yale University’s Comparative Research Workshop for their helpful comments. s Abstract: There is a widespread understanding that social networks are relationalist. In this paper, I suggest an alternative view that relationalism is only one theoretical perspective in network analysis. Relationalism, as currently defined, rejects essentialism, a priori categories, and insists upon the intersubjectivity of experience and meaning, as well as the importance of the content of interactions and their historical setting. Formalism is based on a structuralist interpretation of the theoretical works of Georg Simmel. Simmel based his theory on a Neo-Kantian program of identifying a priori categories of relational types and patterns that operate independently of cultural content or historical setting. Formalism and relationalism are therefore entirely distinct from each other. Yet both are internally consistent theoretical perspectives. The contrast between the two plays out in their approaches to culture, meaning, agency, and generalizability. In this paper, I distinguish the two theoretical strains. 2 Since its inception in the 1930s, social network research has become an increasingly vibrant part of sociology inquiry. The field has grown tremendously over the last few decades: new journals and conferences have been created, programs and concentrations in social network analysis have been created in institutions in both North America and Europe, and large numbers of scholars have been attracted to the field from across a wide disciplinary array, including sociology, anthropology, management sciences, computer science, biology, mathematics, and physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essays
    Ó American Sociological Association 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0094306114562200 http://cs.sagepub.com REVIEW ESSAYS Relationalism Emergent EMILY ERIKSON Yale University [email protected] There has been talk of relationalism in soci- ology for decades now. These two volumes, Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Onto- Conceptualizing Relational Sociology and logical and Theoretical Issues, edited by Applying Relational Sociology, make an explic- Francxois Depe´lteau and Christopher it play to capture the heart and soul of the Powell. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave discipline and send it on a relationalist tra- Macmillan, 2013. 240pp. $100.00 cloth. jectory. The attempt raises a series of linked ISBN: 9781137379900. questions: how relationalism should be defined, what is a relationalist agenda, and Applying Relational Sociology: Relations, do these volumes advance that agenda? Networks, and Society, edited by Francxois The term relationalism is itself contested, Depe´lteau and Christopher Powell. even by the authors included in these two Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, volumes. I have already taken a stand on 2013. 229pp. $100.00 cloth. ISBN: 97811 this issue, so I should be clear that the way 37379917. I see it, relationalism is a theoretical per- spective based in pragmatism that eschews Cartesian dualism, substantialism, and in drawing in adherents to relationalism. In essentialism while embracing emergence, fact, reading the volume straight through experience, practice, and creativity. It includes felt at times like being sucked into a vortex: some but not all social network analysts, field in the beginning you are circling at some dis- theorists, actor-network researchers, econom- tance around the central point, but gradually ic sociologists, a number of comparative-his- advance to denser pieces focused more pre- torical researchers, and of course card-carry- cisely around key issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between the Individual and Society”: Broadening and Deepening Relational Thinking in Group Analysis
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Birkbeck Institutional Research Online BEYOND “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY”: BROADENING AND DEEPENING RELATIONAL THINKING IN GROUP ANALYSIS Sasha Roseneil Group Analysis (2013) 46(2), 196-210. Contact details: Professor Sasha Roseneil Department of Psychosocial Studies/ Birkbeck Institute for Social Research Birkbeck, University of London Malet Street London WC1E 7HX [email protected] 1 Beyond “the relationship between the individual and society”: broadening and deepening relational thinking in group analysis Sasha Roseneil Abstract The question of “the relationship between the individual and society” has troubled group analysis since its inception. This paper offers a reading of Foulkes that highlights the emergent, yet evanescent, psychosocial ontology in his writings, and argues for the development of a truly psychosocial group analysis, which moves beyond the individual/society dualism. It argues for a shift towards a language of relationality, and proposes new theoretical resources for such a move from relational sociology, relational psychoanalysis and the “matrixial thinking” of Bracha Ettinger which would broaden and deepen group analytic understandings of relationality. Keywords: individual; society; group analysis; relationality; relational sociology; relational psychoanalysis; Foulkes; psychosocial. Author contact details: Professor Sasha Roseneil, Department of Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX. [email protected] tel: 020 3073 8362 2 Introduction A preoccupation with the troubling question of “the relationship between the individual and society” is one of the distinctive characteristics of group analysis as a psychotherapeutic modality. Both the body of writing that constitutes “group-analytic thinking”, and the training programmes that transmit and reproduce group analysis devote considerable attention to this knotty problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Soc 915 Ethnography and Theory
    Sociology 915: Spring 2012 Professor Mustafa Emirbayer Tuesdays 3-5 PM Office: 8141 Sewell Social Science Classroom: 4314 Sewell Social Science Office Telephone: 262-4419 Office Hours: Thursdays 11 AM E-mail: [email protected] Ethnography and Theory, Ethnography as Theory It is customary to associate sociological ethnography with sociological methodology. Most works of ethnography include methodological appendices (some quite famous in their own right), and ethnography itself is typically defined as a method of sociological inquiry. And yet ethnography is as much about theory as it as about methods. As far back as the era of the original Chicago School of Sociology (1920s-30s), ethnographers were advancing important theoretical ideas and insights, and present-day commentators have argued that Chicago sociology’s very way of doing ethnography itself amounted to a significant theoretical contribution. Today it is more important than ever to ponder the relation of ethnography to theory, since we are witnessing in recent years, among the younger generation of American sociologists, a remarkable upsurge of interest in participant observation-style ethnographic research. What this Course Covers In this seminar, we explore the many linkages between ethnography and theory, surveying along the way a number of classic writings from the Chicago School; later Chicago-influenced ethnographies; important mid-twentieth century works; more recent classics; and a selection of newly published works by up-and-coming ethnographers. We not only read portions of these substantive works, but we also discuss in tandem with them a wide range of theoretical issues and challenges. Along the way, we explore practical questions as well, such as how theoretical reflection might be incorporated into substantive, data-rich ethnographic writing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relational Approach in Sociology: a Study of Dependence Studie
    Review of Sociology 26(4): 5–28. S The Relational Approach in Sociology: a Study of Dependence STUDIE Bálint Néray [email protected] Manuscript received: 7 July 2016. Modified manuscript received: 21 November 2016. Acceptance of manuscript for publication: 11 December 2016. Abstract: Social relations are often crucial elements of a large variety of social phenomena that social scientists study. However, the formalisation of a relational approach in sociology is relatively incomplete. In this study we draw up an analytical framework within which the aims of empirical research can be formulated and analysed. Our main point of departure is the notion of dependence, which arises through the evolution of relations among individuals, connects them on the meso-level of inquiry, and results in outcomes at the group level. We show that the social mechanisms that are responsible for the evolution of these interpersonal relations can be empirically operationalized within the right methodological framework. Finally, we introduce a longitudinal project and describe a unique data set that is suited to the examination of a wide range of social phenomena in an educational setting. We do this by clarifying key theoretical and methodological concepts in the hope that more empirical research and data collection will be carried out in a relational framework in which individuals and their interpersonal relations are considered to be similarly important. Introduction When it comes to theoretical thinking, and especially to empirical research, the prevailing trend in sociology involves preoccupation with the idea that it is individuals that come first, and the relations among them only afterwards.
    [Show full text]
  • Nikolay Andreev in Germany (1900-1905): a Student and a Social Democrat
    Working Papers WP 2019-06 Centre for German and European Studies (CGES) Mikhail Sinyutin Nikolay Andreev in Germany (1900-1905): A Student and a Social Democrat WP 2019-06 2019 Bielefeld / St. Petersburg № 6 Working Papers WP 2019-06 Centre for German and European Studies Bielefeld University St. Petersburg University Centre for German and European Studies (CGES) CGES Working Papers series includes publication of materials prepared within different activities of the Centre for German and European Studies both in St. Petersburg and in Germany. The CGES supports educational programmes, research and scientific dialogues. In accordance with the CGES mission, the Working Papers are dedicated to the interdisciplinary studies of different aspects of German and European societies. This paper focuses on the short period in an early life of the Russian sociologist Nikolay Andreev (1874- 1956). The paper has been written on the basis of a research stay conducted at several archives in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The research trip was supported by the Centre for German and European Studies, St. Petersburg. Mikhail Sinyutin, Doctor of Sociology, Professor of Economic Sociology Department, Faculty of Sociology, St. Petersburg University. Contact: [email protected] ISSN 1860-5680 © Centre for German and European Studies, 2019 2 Working Papers WP 2019-06 Centre for German and European Studies Table of Contents Abstract. ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Relational Approach and Its Theories in Sociology SPO 510097
    1 The Relational Approach and its Theories in Sociology SPO 510097 ((Tópicos Especiais) Docente: François Dépelteau Programa de Pós-graduação em Sociologia Politica Universidade Federal de Santa-Catarina 2018 General description of relational sociology This course is an illustrated introduction to relational sociology. We will answer to the question What is relational sociology? by comparing this type of sociology to other types of sociologies, notably the ‘substantialist’ approaches in sociology. In brief, relational sociology has been defined as a ‘paradigm’ by relational colleagues. In this sense, it would be the equivalent of other ‘paradigms’ in sociology, such as Marxism, Feminism, system theory and symbolic interactionism. This is partly true since relational sociologists propose sets of worldviews, concepts and methods which are supposed to fix scientific problems other ‘paradigms’ cannot resolve. However, if it refers to T. Kuhn’s views on the ‘structures of scientific revolutions’, this paradigmatic view can be misleading for two main reasons: i) relational sociology does not offer any consensual theory and method, ii) like within other sociological ‘paradigm’, relational sociologists disagree on fundamental issues. In fact, there are different relational theories or approaches. One of the major disagreements refers to the idea that there are ‘social structures’ with ‘causal powers’. However, there are also fundamental agreements among relational sociologists, and this is why we can talk about a ‘relational turn’ in the discipline. Relational sociology should be presented as an intellectual movement within the discipline of sociology (and the ‘society’). Most of relational sociologists are asking for major changes in sociology in terms of epistemological and ontological principles, and at the conceptual and methodological levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcending Modernity with Relational Thinking
    Transcending Modernity with Relational Thinking This book explores the ways in which social relations are profoundly chang- ing modern society, arguing that, constituting a reality of their own, social relations will ultimately lead to a new form of society: an aftermodern or relational society. Drawing on the thought of Simmel, it extends the idea that society consists essentially of social relations, in order to make sense of the operation of dichotomous forces in society and to examine the emer- gence of a “third” in the morphogenetic processes. Through a realist and critical relational sociology, which allows for the fact that human beings are both internal and external to social relations, and therefore to society, the author shows how we are moving towards a new, trans-modern soci- ety – one that calls into question the guiding ideas of Western modernity, such as the notion of linear progression, that science and technology are the decisive factors of human development, and that culture can entirely sup- plant nature. As such, it will appeal to sociologists, social theorists, econo- mists, political scientists, and social philosophers with interests in relational thought, critical realism, and social transformation. Pierpaolo Donati is Alma Mater Professor (PAM) of Sociology at the Uni- versity of Bologna, Italy. Former President of the Italian Sociological Asso- ciation, he is the author of Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences, co-author of The Relational Subject, and co-editor of Social Science, Philosophy and Theology in Dialogue. Routledge Advances in Sociology 303 COVID-19 Volume I: Global Pandemic, Societal Responses, Ideological Solutions Edited by J.
    [Show full text]
  • Pierpaolo Donati University of Bologna
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305347437 The ‘Relational Subject’ According to a Critical Realist Relational Sociology Article in Journal of Critical Realism · August 2016 DOI: 10.1080/14767430.2016.1166728 CITATIONS READS 7 704 1 author: Pierpaolo Donati University of Bologna 152 PUBLICATIONS 1,183 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Gift as part of the paradigm of philosophy of relation View project relational sociology View project All content following this page was uploaded by Pierpaolo Donati on 15 May 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Journal of Critical Realism ISSN: 1476-7430 (Print) 1572-5138 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjcr20 The ‘Relational Subject’ According to a Critical Realist Relational Sociology Pierpaolo Donati To cite this article: Pierpaolo Donati (2016) The ‘Relational Subject’ According to a Critical Realist Relational Sociology, Journal of Critical Realism, 15:4, 352-375, DOI: 10.1080/14767430.2016.1166728 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2016.1166728 Published online: 15 Jul 2016. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjcr20 Download by: [Professor Pierpaolo Donati] Date: 15 July 2016, At: 13:13 journal of critical realism,
    [Show full text]
  • "The Field": Glocality, Relationality and Transformativity 1. Introduction
    Volume 17, No. 3, Art. 15 September 2016 Creating "the Field": Glocality, Relationality and Transformativity Hans Erik Naess Key words: Abstract: Due to its standing as the basic unit of analysis in ethnography, "the field" needs to be glocality; approached with precision. However, while there have been plenty of attempts to detach the relationality; concept from its historical relation with places and groups, there are few reconstructions of it—not transformativity; least in sociology—which prove useful in an increasingly complex world. For that reason, the fieldwork; objective in this article is to introduce three dimensions of fieldwork that enable the sociological motorsports; ethnographer to unravel the concept and reassemble it for analytical purposes. Based on ethnography; experiences from fieldwork on the FIA World Rally Championship (WRC) conducted at various participant sites, the mutually inclusive processes of glocality, relationality and transformativity are discussed observation as a way to both define and analyze the field. The result is a conceptualization of the field as a way into a research topic (by decreasing the risk of getting lost in the topical diversity) and a way out of it (by increasing the chances of communicating field-relevant findings). Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical Background 3. Glocality 4. Relationality 5. Transformativity 6. Concluding Remarks References Author Citation 1. Introduction Ethnography is normally understood as a researcher undertaking "research and writing about groups of people by systematically observing and participating (to a greater or lesser degree) in the lives of the people they study" (MADDEN, 2010, p.1). Traditionally, this is done by spending a significant amount of time in the field, usually 12-18 months and doing participant observation in territorially circumscribed small-scale societies (ERIKSEN, 2003, p.6; STEWART, 1998, p.68; WULFF, 2007, p.139).
    [Show full text]