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 : 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 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’’). and Charles essentialism within 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 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, , 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. And different cities, communities, and at all dif- similarly, the entirety of the world can be ferent levels of social, cellular, and physical divided into structures and agents. At the organization. In the social world alone, there core of this is the perception of the subject are countless institutions, and these institu- as distinct from the world they observe, tions, according to Mohr and White, are all which again is a duality that encompasses based on different dualisms. The agenda everything in the same way that what is suggested by this approach is not so much inside this box and outside this box consti- ‘‘relations’’ as ‘‘mappings’’—mappings that tutes everything in the universe. occur across many diverse phenomena. This If the core of relational sociology is to move suggests an alternative agenda for focus on dissolving totalizing dualisms, relationalism, which does not focus on dis- such as mind/body, structure/agent, then solving the boundary between the individu- the right thing to do may be to focus efforts als and their environment (social or otherwise), on the perceptual boundary between the but instead investigates how interactions self and what is exterior to the self. In this between distinct systems produce dynamics, case, it seems entirely appropriate to drill change, innovation, and difference. deeper down into the experience, constitu- The chapters in the volumes that exempli- tion, and contents of social relations them- fy this second trajectory mainly appear in selves. There are many reasons to believe Applying Relationalism. They are easy to that social relations (meaning relations pick out as the relations of interest in them between individuals) are exactly that which are between non-human actors. Daniel Mon- traverses this boundary, either because the terescu has a fascinating chapter (‘‘Spatial individual recognizes itself in the exterior Relationality and the Fallacies of Methdolog- world through social relations (Simmel ical Nationalism’’) on Palestinian-Israeli 1971, Levinas 1978) or because the mind interaction in Jaffa in which the relation of is constructed through the experience of interest is between space and nationalism. relations. In ‘‘Survival Units as the Point of Departure Debbie Kasper suggests this tack in her for a Relational Sociology,’’ Lars Bo essay ‘‘Advancing Sociology through a Focus Kaspersen and Norman Gabriel are centrally on Dynamic Relations’’ where she asserts concerned with shifting relationalism fundamental principles of human relations from a focus on social relations to inter- and argues that establishing these premises actions between survival units, which are

Contemporary Sociology 44, 1

Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com by Rachel Pines on June 8, 2016 6 Review Essays autonomous and sovereign political com- phenomenon, as well as the urgency of the munities. Osmo Kivinen and Tero Piiroinen social questions we need to address. are concerned with the relationship between Will these two volumes push relational- social groups and their environment in their ism to the center of sociology? First it should chapter, ‘‘Human Transaction Mechanisms be stated that Depe´lteau and Powell in Evolutionary Niches—A Methodological acknowledge the possibility that this goal Relationalist Standpoint.’’ John Mohr focus- may not be entirely suitable and that per- es on the relation between practice and cul- haps a Donald Levine-esque vision of multi- ture in his chapter, ‘‘Bourdieu’s Relational ple theoretical perspectives best suits sociol- Method in Theory and in Practice’’). And ogy (Levine 1995). I believe they would still, Harrison White, Fre´de´ric Godart, and Mat- however, argue that relationalism should be tias Thiemann as well as Jorge Fontedevila a larger component of the overall discipline. and Harrison White are concerned with the This, however, begs the question of the relationship between netdoms in their chap- extent to which relationalism already domi- ters, ‘‘Turning Points and the Space of Possi- nates sociology. The volumes represent rela- bles’’ and ‘‘Relational Power from Switching tionalism as a minority position, but is that across Netdoms through Reflexive and the reality? Students of Harrison White are Indexical Language.’’ Although Margaret faculty members at most major universities, Archer’s chapter, ‘‘Collective Reflexivity: A and their students fill many other spots (I Relational Case for It,’’ works through the am both a student of White’s and a student perceptual boundary of human subjects by of one of White’s students). The editor of thinking through the process of ‘‘relational the most prestigious journal in the field subjects being reflexive about their social speaks openly against simple linear models relationships’’ (p. 145), she is not using rela- (Abbott 1988). The field of social networks tions to dissolve the difference between the is expanding at a rapid pace. Economic soci- self and the social, but instead to think ology, which was founded on a relationalist through processes through which the social text by a student of Harrison White (Grano- may emerge from a different phenomenon vetter 1985), is an extremely healthy section (i.e., the individual); thus putting her in the of the discipline. Paul DiMaggio and Walter mapping across diverse, or distinct, phe- Powell’s 1983 article bringing field theory to nomena camp. organizations has been cited more than Various authors acknowledge this tension, 26,000 times. And John Padgett and Walter if in passing. Margaret Archer notes that her Powell’s new book, The Emergence of Markets approach may be ‘‘unpopular among rela- and Organizations (2012), promises to be tionalists who want to keep their ontology extremely influential. There is a strong argu- flat’’ (p. 146). And Craig McFarlane, in his ment to be made that the new institutional- chapter, ‘‘Relational Sociology, Theoretical ism, organizational ecology, organizational Inhumanism, and the Problem of the Non- studies, , social net- human,’’ criticizes relationalism generally works, and comparative for a humanist social ontology that ignores are all strongly relationalist. Perhaps an the importance of sociality in animals as important step for advancing relationalism well as humanity’s relations with animals. is going to be working to incorporate much This criticism might be extended to include of this already extremely influential work materials and environment, and important into an explicit and overarching theoretical factors such as the distribution of natural framework. We might ask of these authors, resources or the structure of river networks for example, what is the difference between get short shrift in relationalism despite their Elias’s figuration (which is mentioned by significant impact on social organization. several as a key relational concept) and an The question of which agenda to pursue institution? They seem very similar to me. hinges upon both the importance of under- Perhaps we do not need a new word, and standing our own subjectivity and perceptu- relationalists will find that they have con- al apparatus in order to explain social quered vast new territories in one small step. outcomes, which is related to the extent Either way, these two volumes do valu- we think of the social as an emergent able work in beginning to chart an explicit

Contemporary Sociology 44, 1

Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com by Rachel Pines on June 8, 2016 Review Essays 7 framework for relational sociology. Mustafa Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Emirbayer’s essay, ‘‘Relational Sociology as Organizational Fields.’’ American Sociological Fighting Words,’’ ends the first volume by Review 48: 147-160. Emirbayer, M. 1997. ‘‘Manifesto for a Relational calling for relationalists to recall their reac- Sociology.’’ American Journal of Sociology tionary roots and a past grounded in the crit- 103(2) 281–317. doi:10.1086/231209 icism of mainstream sociological thought. Erikson, Emily. 2013. ‘‘Formalist and Relationalist But Emirbayer’s own relationalist manifesto Theory in .’’ Sociologi- was solidly grounded in a wonderfully cal Theory 31(3) 219–242. doi:10.1177/ coherent interpretation of pragmatism. He 0735275113501998 did much more than merely criticize, and Fuhse, Jan A. 2009. ‘‘The Meaning Structure of Social Networks.’’ Sociological Theory 27(1) indeed I am not sure why we would need 51–73. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.00338.x an overarching theoretical framework for Levinas, Emmanuel. 1978. Otherwise than Being: or sociology if the framework lacked consisten- Beyond Essence. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. cy and a clearly recognizable logic, that is, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. was more than mere criticism. That is not Levine, Donald N. 1995. Visions of the Sociological necessarily easy to achieve, but it is a project Tradition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. well worth undertaking, and I am grateful to Mohr, John W., and H. C. White. 2008. ‘‘How to the editors and contributors for making real Model an Institution.’’ Theory and Society progress in this task. 37(5) 485–512. doi:10.1007/s11186-008-9066-0 Padgett, John F., and Walter W. Powell. 2012. The Emergence of Organizations and Markets. Prince- References ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Simmel, Georg. 1971. ‘‘How is Society Possible?’’ Abbott, Andrew. 1988. ‘‘Transcending General Pp. 6-22 in On Individuality and Social Forms, Linear Reality.’’ Sociological Theory 6: 169-186. edited by Donald Levine. Chicago, IL: Univer- Breiger, Ronald. 1974. ‘‘The Duality of Persons sity of Chicago Press. and Groups.’’ Social Forces 53(2): 181-90. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. ‘‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional

Democratic Ideals and Sobering Realities: The Lifeworks of Philip Selznick and Amitai Etzioni

HANS JOAS Humboldt University, Berlin University of Chicago [email protected]

While there is a constant output of books and articles about the founders and classics Philip Selznick: Ideals in the World,by of the sociological discipline, much less Martin Krygier. Stanford, CA: Stanford attention is being devoted to the crucial fig- University Press, 2012. 352pp. $65.00 ures of later phases in the history of the dis- cloth. ISBN: 9780804744751. cipline. The two books under review here indicate a certain change in this respect. Etzioni’s Critical Functionalism: Communi- Two of the towering American sociologists tarian Origins and Principles,byDavid of the first decades after the Second World Sciulli. Leiden, NL: Brill, 2011. 504pp. War who later became major public intellec- $140.00 cloth. ISBN: 9789004190436. tuals of international influence are the sub- ject matter of these two thorough and well- researched monographs: Philip Selznick biographical developments of these two (1919–2010) and Amitai Etzioni (1929– ). scholars that could nourish debates about There are interesting parallels in the the present state of the discipline. The

Contemporary Sociology 44, 1

Downloaded from csx.sagepub.com by Rachel Pines on June 8, 2016