Lectures on Relational Sociology: basics

1
Lectures onRelational Sociology basics
advancements
Pierpaolo Donati University of Bologna
2
Basic texts

• P. DONATI, Sociologia della relazione, il Mulino,
  Bologna, 2013
• P. DONATI, Sociologia relazionale. Come cambia la
  società, La Scuola, Brescia, 2013.

3
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)

4
Foundations of the relational paradigm

• 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)

5
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, Lanalisi relazionale
  regole, quadro metodologico, esempi, in Id.
  (ed.),
• Sociologia. Una introduzione allo studio
  della società, Padova, 2006, 195-251).

6
The epistemic gain

• 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

7
(No Transcript)
8
.. 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

9
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)

10
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)
• Rrelation to the ri relations that A has with
  its external world
• It can be conceived in terms of relational
  reflexivity of A

11
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 Simmels Wechselwirkung or effect of
  reciprocity, the Third created by the exchange
  or, better, reciprocal action between Ego and
  Alter)

12
Relational sociology combines the three
semantics together(relation at the micro level)

• Legenda
• A means of the relation
  first semantics
• G target/goal
  (refero)
• I norms of coordination
• L (latent cultural) value
• (worth of the relation)
• 
  
  EMERGENT
• 
  
  (third semantics)
• 
  
  second semantics
• 
  
  (religo)

G R E F A R E L I G O
I E R O L
13
At the macro (meso) levels

• G
• State
• (apparatuses)
• A
  I
• Market
  Civil society
• (firms)
  (associations)
• L
• Culture
• (life worlds)

14
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

15
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

16
(No Transcript)
17
2 ex.) The complex of citizenship rights

• T. H. Marshalls theory on citizenship rights
• (which were supposed to develop in indian
  file/linear sequence A-gtG-gtI, but lack the L
  dimension)

G Political rights A
I Civil
rights
Social rights
(welfare) L (?)
18
The relational theory can fill the (unseen,
under-conceptualized) L dimension and redefine
the emergent complex of rights
G Political rights A
I
Civil rights
Social rights (free market)
(social
welfare) L Human rights (life-worlds) (these
are relational rights, i.e. rights to human
relations, since the human person is an
individual-in-relation)
19
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)
• Institutional Welfare (G) is up to the state
• Acquisitive-Meritocratic Welfare (A) is up to the
  market
• Residual Welfare (L) is up to families informal
  networks
• Anything else? What about welfare in the social
  integration
• dimension (I)? Up to whom?

20
(No Transcript)
21
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)

22
(No Transcript)
23
In order to capture the reality and the
making of new social relations we need an
adequate relational analysisrules, research
design, methodological toolsto see social
relations as generative mechanisms and targets
for applied (professional) sociology Cf. P.
Donati, Lanalisi relazionale regole, quadro
metodologico, esempi, in Id. (ed.), Sociologia,
Cedam, Padova, 2006, pp. 195-251.
24
Two basic points first1) Relational analysis
looks at social networks as networks of social
relations, not only as networks of nodesNotice
the difference
25
Two basic points second2) The observation
should be relational, which means that the
social relation should be seen as a generative
mechanism
         
  O (observer)   O (observer)   O (observer)    
socio-cultural structures in which A is embedded     (AGIL of As action) A B (AGIL of Bs 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.
26
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)
  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, having Time produced relational goods or relational evils, etc.)

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

26
27
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)
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)
30
The perspective by M.S. ArcherEvery 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
• Conditioning
• structure
  
  
  Conditioning structure
• Agent1
  Agent2
• (agency1)
  
  (agency2)
• Legenda (composition
  
  ORDER OF
• of the relation)
  
  INTERACTION
• Structure means ?? norms
• Culture value ? ? goal
• 
  
  BLACK BOX
• 
  EMERGENT

C U L T U R E
S T R UC T U R E
31
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
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.

33
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)
34
The social molecule of the modern relation(or
the modern relational organization of social
relations)? nextThe social molecule of the
after-modern relation(or the after-modern
relational organization of social relations)?
next
35
The social molecule produced by modern society
is constituted by four base-elements that are
combined togetherG) 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 competitionL) 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
36
(No Transcript)
37
The social molecule of the after-modern society
is constituted by four base-elements that are
combined togetherG) the social relations
target/goal is to select variations according to
the type and degree of relationality that they
entailA) 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)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
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
41
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)

42
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
• Since social issues (in a specific context) stem
  from a
• peculiar dynamics of social relations and
  their outcomes,
• Then the remedial interventions must be sought
  in the modification of social relations (the
  social network),
• by relying upon the natural potentials of
  social groups (i.e. relational networks), through
  indirect (not direct) interventions called
  relational steering

43
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.

44
An example of how to apply the scheme
45
The emergence of co-production

• Network 1
  Network 2
• (traditional delivery of services)
  (co-production)
• Individual feedback
  Relational feedback
• Networks with relations based
  Networks with relations based
• upon positive/negative feedbacks
  upon relational feedbacks
• (personal reflexivity)
  (relational reflexivity)

co
Communities of citizens
Regular producer
consumer
Public services
46
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.
47
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.)

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.