On Relational Sociology

2015/10/30 @Matsumoto Seminar Camp

Agenda• A brief introduction to so-called “Relational Sociology”.• Because this school isn’t yet to be widely known in Japan. • Today, I focus on actual works rather than conceptual discussion.• … in relation to my own research.

My research projects (independent each other, so far.)

1. How does homophily in japan differs from other countries? 2. Does homophily exist classroom and on-line too? 3. What is consequences if everyone strives to locate in advantageous

positions in social network ? 4. How was cross-cutting social circles formed?

What is “Relational Sociology”?• Relational Sociology is a school that deems social relations the most

important concept.• Further, some sociologist in this school regard only social relations as

analysis units. = radical relationalism(Powell 2013)• They describe or explain social phenomena by an analogy to social

networks.• The founding father of this school is Harrison C. White, who rarely –

probably never uses the term “relational sociology”.• The name “Relational Sociology” was first used by Emirbayer(1997).

Characteristics of Relational Sociology• Refusing categorical world-views.

- (e.g.) interest is formed in relation to social relations, not to one’s attributes. see also Gould(1995)

• Trying to overcome the duality of agency-structure.(in detail, see Emirbayer and Goodwin(1994) or Emirbayer(1997))

Forerunners• George Simmel – Formal Sociology• Norbert Elias – Configurational Sociology• Pierre Bourdieu – Structural Relation• Bruno Latour – Actor Network Theory

Relations among Relational Sociologists

(Fuhse 2015: 22)

The Core -Harrison C. WhiteBorn in 1930, Washington D.C.Ph.D(Theoretical Physics, MIT)Ph.D(Sociology, Princeton)

MAIN WORKSAnatomy of Kinship – algebraic model of kinship structureChains of Opportunity – “vacancy chains” theoryBlockmodeling – a method for grouping by specifying structural equivalent actors → the Harvard BreakthroughIdentity and Control

Identity and Control (1992,2008)KEY CONCEPTS• Identitiy• Footing• Switchings• Netdom• CATNET• Stories• Styles• Rhetorics• Disciplines … and so on.

Difficulties reading Identity and Control• White built his theory on the basis of physics. So we need to get used to

the world view that physics adopts.• His theory includes the problem of reflexibility. (so he often refers to

Luhmann)• This book is not only about human relations but also about meaning that

emerges from social networks.• Concepts he uses are cross-referring, so that it is difficult to grasp exact

meanings of them at a first reading.

• Next, we’ll pick up some of White’s concepts and try to outline them.

Identity• Identitiy is the smallest analysis unit for White’s theory.• The concept of identity can be divided into five senses.

1. The smallest unit of analysis2. A connected bunch of first-sense-identities3. The trace of identities in different netdoms (I’ll mention this later)4. The interpretation of the third sense5. A dynamic, self-reproducing amalgam across profiles of switchings

(17-18)

Footing• Identities are always seeking footing.• “identities spring up out of efforts at control in turbulent context.”(1)• “identity achieves social footing as both a source and a destination of

communications to which identities attribute meaning.”(1)• “Human social process typically orients around meanings of events

and interpretations of relations among identities.”(3)

Netdom, Switchings• “Identities trigger out of events – that is to say, out of switches in

surroundings – seeking control over uncertainty and thus over fellow identities. Identities build and articulate ties to other identities in network-domains, netdoms, for short.”(2)• “The important point is that, although you log out, your identity in

that forum, your account, remains, so your postings are not deleted by the logout process. (…) But the interaction has just switched from one netdom to another. ”• “Switchings are the vehicles of meaning for identity and control.”(17)

CATNET• A term which combined “CATEGORY” and “NETWORK”• Dense cluster of network　⇆　 Social category to it• This is meaning in general of CATNET, but White himself gives much

more complicated definition to this concept. (see below)• “Similarity in attributes will generate groups out of categories. Yet

network ties will continue to be recognized, interwining across categories without recognition of the network as such. Label this generalization and loosening of the concept a category-network, abbreviated as catnet.”(53)

In relation to my own research

switching

switching

MeaningMeaning

• Each media-layers are understood as netdoms.• If it is true that switchings engender meanings, I have to do qualitative

researches as well as quantitative one.

Another Giant – John Levi Martin• He is known as the advocate of “field theory.”• The concept of “Heuristics” is also important (for my research.)

From Social Structures• Strucure is not only objective but also subjective.• “Since the structures that will be examined here are

simple, the imperatives for action that constitute their subjective correlatives are also simple; I shall refer to such subjective understandings as heuristics.”(18)• “Heuriustics work well because they are

“ecologically rational” in that they make use of predictable features of the natural or social environment to simplify otherwise daunting process tasks.”

In relation to my own research• Now I suppose one’s own utilities are calculated on the basis of objective

local network, that is, second-order neighborhood from point of view of ego. It reflects the condition of imperfect information.

• But is it true? This conversion means extracting subnetwork from the objective network. But This should be the rare case of heuristics actors actually adopts.

Is Relatinal Sociology structuralism?• Partly false.• According to Dépelteau(2013), there are three types of RS.• Deterministic RS – social networks determine one’s action (≡ strucuturalism?)• Co-deterministic RS – adding person’s ability to deterministic RS • Transactional sociology – “deep” relational ontology. No need to presuppose

“agency-structure” or “subject-object”. There are only transactions between actors.

Masterpieces of relational sociology• Padgett and Ansell(1993)

- Explaining the Rise of the Medici. They revealed that the Medici was located in the position that brokered economic “new men” and conventional aristocracies.(c.f. Burt(1992))

• Gould(1991,1995)- About the mobilization in Paris Commune. This research revealed that insurgents were mobilized by social relations (e.g. neighborhood) rather than their class interests. This implies that social identity is not determined by their attributes, but among social relations.

• Bearman and Stovel(2000)- converting life-stories of early Nazis into narrative networks and analyzing them. In the result, stories about “becoming” and “being” Nazi different in the extent of forming “self”.

In comparison to “Analytical Sociology”• Analytical Sociology is a research program led by Peter Hedström(2005).• Trying to shed light on mechanisms behind social phenomena.• Explaining social phenomena rather than describing it.• If you’d like to know in detail, see 打越・前嶋 (in press)

In comparison to “Analytical Sociology”• Two views have much in common. (ex. Opposition to “variable sociology”, Emphasizing on process, etc.)• According to Abbott(2007),

Mechanism Views (=AS,RAT) focus on “agent” and “purpose”Relational Views (=RS) focus on “action” and “scene”

• I contend that two views are not necessarily contradictory or exclusive.

Intersection of two paradigms: An example • “Chains of Affection” written by Bearman et al.(2004)• Dealing with social relations by analytical methods (ex. ERGM)

(Bearman et al. 2014: 58)

Open question• What is the difference between “action” and “relation”?

-For example, “friend” relation is often equivalent to “acting-with”-Crossley once defined social relations as “lived trajectories of iterated interaction”(Crossley 2010). This definitions is much about “expectation”. But how much can this metaphysical existence help us understand social action?

• Can we transform all social phenomena into relational forms?-Many social phenomena can be converted into adjacent matrix. (ex. affiliation)-but what cannot be graspd by the relational approach.

Reference• Abbott, A. (2007). Mechanisms and relations. Sociologica, 1(2), 0-0.• Bearman, P. S., Moody, J., & Stovel, K. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of

adolescent romantic and sexual networks1. American journal of sociology, 110(1), 44-91.• Bearman, P. S., & Stovel, K. (2000). Becoming a Nazi: A model for narrative

networks. Poetics, 27(2), 69-90.• Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard

university press.• Crossley, N. (2010). Towards relational sociology. Routledge.• Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of

agency. American journal of sociology, 1411-1454.• Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology 1. American journal of

sociology, 103(2), 281-317.

Reference• Gould, R. V. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1871. American

Sociological Review, 716-729.• Fuhse, J. A. (2015). Theorizing social networks: the relational sociology of and around Harrison

White. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 15-44.Gould, R. V. (1995). Insurgent identities: Class, community, and protest in Paris from 1848 to the Commune. University of Chicago Press.

• Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology (pp. 114-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Martin, J. L. (2009). Social structures. Princeton University Press.• Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici, 1400-

1434. American journal of sociology, 1259-1319.• Powell, C., & Dépelteau, F. (2013). Conceptualizing relational sociology: Ontological and

theoretical issues. Palgrave Macmillan.• White, H. C. (2008). Identity and control: How social formations emerge. Princeton University

Press.