Lectures onRelational Sociology:

basics & advancements

1

What can we see

more and better?

Pierpaolo DonatiUniversity of Bologna

Basic textsP. 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

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

Foundations of the relational paradigm

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

The epistemic gain

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

Basic semantics classical modern after-modern

monistic dualistic relational A = A A = not (notA) 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

Legenda:A = means of the relation first semantics G = target/goal (refero)I = norms of coordinationL = (latent cultural) value (worth of the relation)

EMERGENT (third semantics)

second semantics (religo)

Relational sociology combines the three semantics together

(relation at the micro level)

12

G

REF

A R E L I G O IERO

L

At the macro (meso) levels

GState

(apparatuses)A I

Market Civil society (firms) (associations)

LCulture

(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 consumption

Competitive consumption

Non sovereign consumer

PUBBLIC GOODS

(G = state)

COLLECTIVE

RELATIONAL GOODS (I = associational,

social private spheres)

Sovereign consumer

PRIMARY

RELATIONAL GOODS

(L = families & informal networks)

PRIVATE GOODS (A = capitalist

market)

Lib-lab

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)

17

G Political rights

A I Civil rights Social rights

(welfare)L

(?)

The relational theory can fill the (unseen, under-conceptualized) L dimension and

redefine the emergent complex of rights

18

G Political rights

A I Civil rights Social rights

(free market) (social welfare)

LHuman rights(life-worlds)

(these are ‘relational rights’, i.e. rights to human relations,since the human person is an individual-in-relation)

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) Institutional Welfare (G) is up to the state2) Acquisitive-Meritocratic Welfare (A) is up to the market3) Residual Welfare (L) is up to families & informal networks4) 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)

Welfare outside the market

System (Lib-Lab) welfare policies

(A) Acquisitive-

meritocratic welfare (for profit)

(G) Institutional welfare (state)

Social integration welfare policies (production of relational goods)

(I) Civil welfare (third sector &

prosocial private organizations)

(L) Informal welfare (families & informal

networks)

System integration

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) I (as a social bond) Free giving Free giving as a means of production aimed at social integration (within the market and (within voluntary organizations, the marketable third sector) 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

24

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

Two basic points: second

2) The observation should be relational, which means that the social relation should be seen as a generative mechanism:

25

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.

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)

26

 

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, havingTime produced relational goods or relational evils, etc.)

26

On the morphogenetic process see: M.S. Archer (ed.), Social Morphogenesis, Springer, 2013

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 interactionsin the cycle (T1-T4)

27

28

Comparing relational and relationistic sociologies

Relationistic

(transactional) sociologies:

do not see the emergent

(Y in the previous figure)

-

maintain that relations generate structures

that have no power(Emirbayer, Dépelteau)

Relational(emergentist) sociologies:

see the emergent reality(Y in the previous figure)

-claim that relations (as

structures) have peculiar causal powers

(Archer, Donati)

29

The ‘molecular’ structure of social relation as a generative mechanism:

(a ‘molecule’ is what specifies the qualities and properties of a stuff/entity/matter)

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) ORDER OF RELATION

Conditioningstructure Conditioning structure

Agent1 Agent2(agency1) (agency2)

Legenda (composition ORDER OFof the relation): INTERACTIONStructure = means normsCulture = value goal BLACK BOX EMERGENT 30

CULTURE

S T R UC T U R E

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

32

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.

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 meta-reflexivity 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

39

Figure 3 - The passage from modernity to after-modernity as the turning point of its social molecule’s relational structure. After(trans)modernity TP Modernity 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 after-modern social molecule through the adoption of a principle of functional non-equivalence) 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)

Area of SMG

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 marketand 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

Network 1 Network 2 (traditional delivery of services) (co-production)

Individual feedback Relational feedback

Networks with relations based Networks with relations basedupon positive/negative feedbacks upon relational feedbacks

(personal reflexivity) (relational reflexivity)

45

The emergence of co-production

Regular producer

consumer coPublic services

Communities of citizens

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

48

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.