Applying Relational Sociology

Relations, Networks, and Society

Kenneth A. Loparo, C. Powell, Kenneth A. Loparo, C. Powell, François Dépelteau

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781137379917
• eBook ISBN: 9781137407009
• Topic: Betriebswirtschaft
• Subtopic: Business allgemein

Edited by François Depelteau and Christopher Powell, this volume and its companion, Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues, addresses fundamental questions about what relational sociology is and how it works.

CHAPTER 1

RELATIONAL SOCIOLOGY AND THE GLOBALIZED SOCIETY

Pierpaolo Donati ^*

SOCIOLOGY AND GLOBALIZATION

The basic thesis of this contribution consists in claiming that globalization is bringing about a new “way of making society,”¹ which needs a new sociology to be better understood and explained. Current sociology lacks a vision of how society can exceed itself.

To characterize globalization in terms of uncertainty, risk, and liquidity, as is common to Bauman (1998), Beck (1998), and Giddens (1999), does not significantly extend our knowledge because every epochal crisis has always been accompanied by such “symptoms.” Although these features are particularly pronounced today and are structurally inherent in the emerging society, this does not alter the fact that they are merely symptomatic.

Globalization and its features are not the “causes” of social change; they are “effects.” The causes are the generative mechanisms that produce “a relational order of reality.” This is precisely the topic I want to deal with.

The main sociological interpretations of globalization that can currently be identified (globalization as the last phase of liberal capitalism; globalization as world interdependence or mondialization; globalization as standardization of the Mind, or more simply, as cultural homogenization; globalization as a step toward a single “world social system”) consider globalization to be the fruit of modernity’s realization. For this reason, none are able to break free from a vision of the past that prevents them from taking the qualitative epistemological leap now required to cope with the emergence of an after-or trans-modern society.²

In order to make that leap and thus to take into account the morphogenetic character of globalization and its transformations, sociology has to be able to formulate a new general theory (“relational” in kind) that enables us to distinguish one form of society from another. In particular, it should be able to specify in what respects “global society” differs from all other forms of society—both past and potential ones.

The call for a relational sociological theory emerges from within this framework. Its aim is to avoid reductionism and, on the other hand, to overcome the aporias and difficulties inherent in postmodern theories, especially their imprisonment in what will later be discussed as the complex of “lib/lab” thinking. The goal of a relational theory is to show that society is made up of social relations with respect to which human beings are both immanent and transcendent. So society is still made by human beings, but increasingly it does not consist of them, since it is made up more and more of social relations created by human beings. Such an approach makes it possible to revitalize the human dimension of doing sociology and, in parallel, of making society, despite the apparent dehumanization of contemporary social life (Donati, 2011a).

In this text I argue that globalization means the following: (1) there has been an exponential increase in sociocultural variability on a world scale, because all populations become more and more heterogeneous (“plural”) within and between themselves³; (2) such increase in variability induces the emergence of new mechanisms of selection and stabilization of social relations that are radically different with both earlier and late modernity (i.e., a new social morphogenesis).

My argument will touch on the following points. First of all, in the second section of this chapter, I maintain that classical conceptions of society cannot survive the impact of global society. To substantiate this proposition, it will be argued that mainstream contemporary theories are unable to understand and to explain many contemporary social phenomena. In the third and fourth sections, it will be maintained that, in order to understand these phenomena, it is first necessary to redefine what makes society. Only then can we compare (in the fifth section of this chapter) different societies and identify the features of the new society.

This argument is intended to show that a relational sociological theory alone can understand and explain the specific type of society that is emerging. The meta-theory to be presented is characterized by a radically different way of conceiving what makes society and advances a new representation of the social that is capable of capturing its object more adequately (final section).

GLOBALIZATION AND SOCIAL RELATIONS: SOME UNEXPECTED SOCIAL PHENOMENA

Sociological theory cannot always provide plausible explanations (or understandings) of social phenomena, unlike the natural sciences. On some occasions its “explanations” are circular or consist of mere tautologies. On others, not only is contemporary sociological theory unable to explain certain phenomena, but it also interprets them as irrational, unpredictable, or “perverse” effects. This is because these phenomena apparently fail to comply with the established explanations (the so-called laws) of modern sociological theory.

Following are some examples of the phenomena that appear to be “incomprehensible” to current sociology:

Example (a) Gesellschaft produces Gemeinschaft (association generates community).

Most modern sociological theory is unable to explain how relations of Gesellschaft can give rise to relations of Gemeinschaft. I am referring here to Ferdinand Toennies and Max Weber in particular, but most classical authors can be included, although not all of them.⁴ Yet today we can observe several instances in which community relations are generated by contractual relations, initially based on instrumental rationality. This phenomenon takes place in firms, network companies, and voluntary contractual associations (e.g., in so-called time banks set up to regulate the exchange of time spent by participants when offering services to one another). In a number of sectors, associations formed among unrelated individuals can give rise to a community whose aims are not merely instrumental. Can “modern” sociological theory account for this phenomenon? So far, sociology has relied on explanations that appeal to a pendulum effect or depend on the notion of a backlash between Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft. However, these cases defy such explanations (Teubner, 2000).

Example (b) Religion re-enters the public sphere.

Modern sociological theory perceives religion as a phenomenon that is progressively destined to be confined to people’s private lives. Yet numerous empirical studies have revealed that in the West—and in “advanced” modern societies in general—the religious dimension is increasingly regarded as relevant (and rightly so) not only to the private but also to the public sphere (Seligman, 2000). This phenomenon clashes with the “laws” of modern sociological theory, specifically those of progressive “disenchantment” or the inevitability of secularization. A new postsecular public sphere emerges almost everywhere (Donati, 2002).

Example (c) A new economy emerges in which labor is derationalized.

Modern sociological theory sees labor as a service characterized by a process of progressive rationalization and commodification—a phenomenon related to the inexorable development of capitalist economy. Yet in today’s labor market we witness the rise of labor practices that seem to derationalize work. The post-fordist division of labor and the corporations that operate on the basis of a “networking by project” (Boltanski and Chiappello, 1999) are good examples. And so are those practices that do not represent utopian aspirations, but constitute the foundations for new forms of “social” or “civil” economies conducted according to the principle of reciprocity instead of the profit motive (Donati, 2001). How can modern sociological theory begin to explain this?

Example (d) Free giving becomes a differentiated relation, which supports new social and economic organizations.

According to most modern sociological theory, free giving is an archaic and primitive form of economic exchange. However, today, free giving represents a dynamic and diversified type of relationship characterizing several “modern” social spheres. This is the case with the redistribution of citizenship (Caillé, 1994) and within the spheres of private, civil, or social economy (Donati, 2003). In particular, free giving underlies a number of social and economic undertakings, such as community, foundations, social cooperatives, voluntary associations, social enterprises, cyber-commons, and civil foundations, seeking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of disinterested behavior.

Example (e) Ethical markets arise in contradiction with the modern paradigm of instrumental rationality.

In addition to free giving—as an outworking of social integration that may also have economic value—we witness the rise of economies that tend toward new forms of “ethical exchange” (fair trade, “economies of communion,” economies based on social solidarity, etc.) (Donati, 2003). The relational paradigm has already entered modern economics (Sacco and Zamagni, 2002).

Example (f) The crisis of the nation-state citizenship is followed by the rise of new forms of multiple citizenship and nonstate membership.

According to modern social theory, single, dual, and multiple citizenship are rooted in the state, as is illustrated by the issue of passports. Today we witness the rise of social citizenships that are not state based and can be “multiplied” depending on the membership of nonstate political communities, such as epistemic communities, supernational communities (postnational forms of citizenship such as EU citizenship), or cosmopolitan citizenship through the Internet. To my mind, this process is bound to develop because the globalization of social relations necessarily implies the multiple memberships of social actors in associations that are increasingly differentiating themselves both within and between nation-states (Preyer, 2000).

Example (g) New “virtual communities” appear.

According to modern social theory, communities are based on cultural identity, whereas associations are based on interests. Yet today we witness the emergence of societies that are based neither on identity nor on interests, but on virtual forms of communication (they are “virtual tribes” according to Dell’Aquila, 1999), such as virtual Internet communities (discussion groups, antiglobal websites, social networks, etc.)—ones that may contribute somehow to the pursuit of interests and identity but basically stem from other drives.

Example (h) The class-based conflict disappears and gives way to conflicts over civil rights and ecological issues.

Social theory emphasizes the centrality of conflicts over social rewards in modernity, as in the classic portrayal of class, status, and power struggles. Increasingly, however, contemporary conflicts are centered on on civil rights and ecological issues, encompassing both physical ecology (concerned with the protection of the environment and of natural resources) and human ecology (concerning human relations and in particular intergenerational relations, etc.).

To repeat, the social theory of modernity could not predict these phenomena and cannot adequately explain them. Other allegedly “new” phenomena are the emergence of new forms of warfare and terrorism, of new family models, of new approaches to risk, and of new learning practices. For some, the mobilization of 130 million people across the world, on February 15, 2003, who took to the streets in protest against the war in Iraq, should be included among these new social phenomena. Indubitably, international social movements are innovative phenomena of great significance because they represent the birth of a new world civil society. But are they really different from and discontinuous with the paradigm of modernity?

In many respects, these movements can be seen as an extension of the classic paradigm of the relations between civil society and political society, now carried beyond the nation state. By contrast, what were defined above as “new” phenomena (a–h) are genuinely ground breaking because they cannot be assimilated to expressions of modernizing processes or regarded as mere reactions to or effects of capitalism. In short, the above examples cannot be understood as simple reactions to modernity or as its continuation, since they do not conform to any of its “laws” or tendencies. It is intriguing that such phenomena have emerged at the same time as processes of globalization. Is this a coincidence or is there a causal relationship between the two?

To consider these new phenomena simply as an effect of the worldwide expansion of modern capitalism (Wallerstein, 1991) is reductive and misleading. To regard these phenomena as only reactions to the spread of capitalism, or as alternatives to capitalism, amounts to explaining their existence in terms of capitalism and modernity. Instead, my contention is that they are radically discontinuous with modern society and with modern sociological theory, which are homologous with each other.⁵

WHAT TRANS-MODERN SOCIAL PHENOMENA TEACH US

It is maintained here that the common denominator of the examples mentioned above is that they are all based on “creative relationships.” These are such that neither action theories (based on methodological individualism) nor system and structural theories (based on methodological holism) can possibly understand and explain. In order to give a proper account of the above examples, we need a “theory of emergent phenomena.”⁶

Action theories seek to explain these phenomena as the aggregate result of some individual “subject” (e.g., Elster, 1984) or collective “subject” (e.g., Touraine, 1978). Yet the phenomena listed above clearly exceed and transcend the qualities of the subject—whether individual or collective. Such phenomena are neither the sum nor the product of fa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• 1. Relational Sociology and the Globalized Society
• 2. Spatial Relationality and the Fallacies of Methodological Nationalism: Theorizing Urban Space and Binational Sociality in Jewish-Arab “Mixed Towns”
• 3. Survival Units as the Point of Departure for a Relational Sociology
• 4. Human Transaction Mechanisms in Evolutionary Niches—a Methodological Relationalist Standpoint
• 5. Bourdieu’s Relational Method in Theory and in Practice: From Fields and Capitals to Networks and Institutions (and Back Again)
• 6. Turning Points and the Space of Possibles: A Relational Perspective on the Different Forms of Uncertainty
• 7. Relational Power from Switching across Netdoms through Reflexive and Indexical Language
• 8. Social Relationships between Communication, Network Structure, and Culture
• 9. Connecting Network Methods to Social Science Research: How to Parsimoniously Use Dyadic Measures as Independent Variables
• Index