Review Essays
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. Perhaps as part of ing relationalists, such as Mustafa Emirbayer this strategy, Depe´lteau and Powell seem and Margaret Somers (Erikson 2013). These hesitant to flesh out too strict a definition volumes are populated with a slightly dif- of relationalism in the introductions. It is ferent set of researchers: social network after all a collection of volumes presenting analysis and field theory are well repre- a variety of perspectives on this problem sented, but so is critical realism; and there and too strict a definition runs the risk of is an explicit attempt to draw in feminist excluding contributors; however, this leaves theory (Sarah Redshaw’s ‘‘Feminist Prel- us with slightly anemic descriptions of rela- udes to Relational Sociology’’) and Marx- tionalism as based around the importance of ism (Kenneth Fish’s ‘‘Relational Sociology relations (Conceputalizing Relational Sociolo- and Historical Materialism: Three Conver- gy) and as challenging determinism and sation Starters’’). John Dewey and Charles essentialism within sociological theory and Peirce are cited here and there, but the leg- research (Applying Relational Sociology). Fair acy of Norbert Elias dominates the first vol- enough. Movements need members, and ume, and Pierre Bourdieu has probably the members are diverse—but there are risks to second strongest presence and appears this strategy also. throughout both. One of these risks is incoherence. It is fair It is clear that the editors, Francxois Depe´l- to say that much of the usefulness of theory teau and Christopher Powell, are interested is based in logical consistency. Theory builds 3 Contemporary Sociology 44, 1 Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com by Rachel Pines on June 8, 2016 4 Review Essays insight, reveals obscure connections, and evolved over time to mean both one thing drives research by generating new hypothe- and its near opposite. In this case, (1) the ses. It does so largely through the logic complete separation between two distinct stringing the elements of the theory together. parts (i.e., dichotomy), as well as, (2) the Without the logic, theory is a set of unrelated inseparability and co-constitution of two observations about the world that does little related parts. The history of this confusion is to build the intuition necessary to interpret long and interesting to think through, but suf- new events. The volumes and the project of fice it to say that it haunts this discussion. It is relational sociology must necessarily navi- my belief that when network theorists such as gate a tight line between embracing a large Ronald Breiger, Harrison White, and John constituency and risking theoretical pas- Mohr use the term duality, they mean the lat- tiche. And there is a little of the latter here, ter: the intertwined, co-constitution, and inter- as many authors do not hesitate to draw action between two parts (Breiger 1974, a concept from Elias here, a concept from Mohr and White 2008). Mohr and White Bourdieu there, and a little from Dewey make this more explicit in their co-authored over here. There is a certain richness to piece on institutions, where they write that this, and these touchstones also serve impor- structural duality ‘‘is a relationship that tant legitimizing functions, but do all these inheres within and between two classes of bleeding fragments fit together into a coher- social phenomena such that the structural ent whole? Perhaps they do, but the reader ordering of one is constituted by and deserves a more explicit investigation of this. through the structural ordering of the oth- Christopher Powell offers the most explic- er’’ (2008: 490). This definition is very dif- it, comprehensive, and precise vision of rela- ferent from a Cartesian or Kantian mind/ tionalism included in the volume in his body dualism, where the mind is distinct chapter, ‘‘Radical Relationalism: A Propos- from the world, of a different order and al.’’ He lays out nine proposals as a founda- essence, and is definitively not constituted tion for the perspective. In truth, I am some- through interacting with the world because thing of a relationalist myself, so all of these it is prior to experience of the world. proposals sound good in and of themselves. This distinction matters for reasons However, considering their relation to one beyond the easily remedied fact that dual- another, I become less convinced that they ism is both summarily dismissed and make sense as a whole. For example, the embraced as a key mechanism by various guidelines posit relations as the elementary contributors because they mean different units of analysis, but then suggest that we things by the term. Relationalists like to ‘‘Treat the concepts of ‘structure’ and ‘agen- emphasize relations rather than differences cy’ as opposed but equivalent’’ and further, between the things that are interacting. we should ‘‘Treat macro and micro as rela- This emphasis has produced a little fuzzi- tive, not separate’’ (pp. 197, 201). But what ness about the nature of the things that are is structure and agency if relations are the interacting. For example, relationalists have elementary unit of analysis? Do relations claimed in several places that focusing on have agency in that case? Are relations the relations can dissolve the dualism between agents? And how do micro and macro map structure and agency. The question is wheth- on to structure and agency? Without making er this means showing that structure and the links between these relatively complex agency are the same thing (presumably theoretical concepts more explicit, it reads relations) or whether it means that structure more like a list of (valid) complaints, than and agency are related and co-constituted, a generative basis for future investigation but nevertheless also represent two distinct of the social world. phenomena. This dilemma currently seems The volume also includes what I believe to have the most traction in debates between are potentially serious conflicts and incon- the critical realist school and the mechanism- sistent conceptual framing. The most impor- based approach of analytical sociology, tant is in regards to the idea of duality. I find where critical realism champions emergence, the word duality very problematic as it is which implies difference, and analytical one of those words, like sanction, that has sociology embraces supervenience, which Contemporary Sociology 44, 1 Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com by Rachel Pines on June 8, 2016 Review Essays 5 implies correspondence. It also has very real will go ‘‘a long way toward remedying the implications for what types of research are seemingly intractable incoherence in sociol- most likely to be the most promising (for ogy’’ (p. 76). Nick Crossley expands our example, the embrace of supervenience sense of the ontological character of social leads to a strong emphasis on computation- relations by comparing them to field posi- al modeling in analytical sociology). Reject- tions in his chapter ‘‘Interactions, Juxtaposi- ing dualism wholesale can lead to a position tions, and Tastes: Conceptualizing ‘Rela- that emphasizes the unity of social phe- tions’ in Relational Sociology.’’ And Jan nomenon via social relations, where Fuhse extends work set out in his recent Breiger, White, and Mohr’s rehabilitation Sociological Theory article (2009) in the chap- of dualism gives greater room for the emer- ter, ‘‘Social Relationships between Commu- gence of difference in those phenomenon. nication, Network Structure, and Culture.’’ Relationalists are going to have to come There he draws from Nicholas Luhmann’s downononesideortheother,orcomeup communication theory to consider the prob- with their own twist. lems of what ‘‘social relationships actually The way in which dualism is conceptual- are, how they form and evolve, and how ized suggests two different trajectories for they connect to wider layers of the social’’ a relationalist research agenda. Many dual- (p. 181). isms import a totalizing quality into the per- The dualisms that Mohr and White spectives that they inform. For example, describe do not split reality into two exhaus- everything is either in the material or the tive categories. There are multiple dualisms ideal realm. What is not of the mind is bodily that occur simultaneously within and across and what is bodily is not of the mind.