Search

Relationalism presumes conceptual primacy of relations over the elements engaged in those relations. In that sense, relations are not viewed as something external to pre-given elements, but as constitutive of those elements. Processual relationalism presumes that the relations between/among elements are not just static ties, but unfolding, dynamic processes. Currently, processual relationalism is increasingly present in the social sciences. Nevertheless, it is the movement of relational sociology that has been at the forefront of the processual 'relational turn.' In this paper, the authors argue that the methodological potential of processual-relational sociology should be taken decisively further since it is especially relevant for addressing the socio-political reality of our time that is increasingly characterized by what has been referred to as 'wicked problems'. Through introducing the distinction of self-action, interaction and trans-action as it is discussed in relational sociology, the authors argue that the methodological consequences of processual relationalism overlap with constitutive explanation, which is an important addition to causal explanation that is prevalent in the 'variable-centered' social sciences. The authors offer a sketch of a research agenda for explaining a wicked problem that needs a processual-relational methodology to be addressed: the ongoing COVID-19 Crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I present and summarize the theoretical proposals of four leading scholars of the so-called ‘relational sociology’. First of all I try to contextualize its emergence and developments in the increasingly globalized scientific system. From this particular (and international) point of view, relational sociology seems to develop through a peculiar scientific path opened and charted by well-identified actors and competitors, their invisible colleges, their global connections, cleavages, and coalitions. Whatever the structuring of this field, it accomplishes the criticism of classical individualistic and collectivistic sociological theories, a task strongly facilitated by the development of new methods and techniques of empirical research, and by the increasingly powerful computing capabilities. After this brief historical reconstruction, and following very strictly the contributions of the four scholars, I try to synthetize their theoretical designs, focusing the analysis on two scientific issues of great significance for the future of relational sociology: the specific ontology of ‘social relations’ and the methodologies used to observe it adequately. Finally, I wonder if we are facing a new sociological paradigm, already well structured and internationally established, or rather a ‘relational turn’ that probably will develop into a new ‘sociological field’ internally very differentiated and articulated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper offers an overview of relational sociology as developed by and around Harrison White. Relational sociology provides a substantial account of social networks, conceptualizing them as real social structures interwoven with meaning. Forms of meaning connected to network configurations (as part of their ‘domains’) include stories, identities, social categories (including role categories), and institutions. Recent advances lead to a network perspective on culture, and to an emphasis on communicative events in networks. In contrast to other strands of relational sociology, the approach aims at a close connection between empirical research and theoretical reflection. Theoretical concepts and arguments are geared at empirical applicability in network research, rather than mainly providing a theoretical description of the social world. Finally, the author's own version of relational sociology is sketched: social networks are seen as dynamic constructions of relational expectations. These emerge and develop over the course of communication (in the sense of Niklas Luhmann), in turn effectively channeling communicative sequence. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In recent years, many different versions of relational sociology have appeared. In this paper, I present a critical realist version developed since 1983, which is also called ‘relational theory of society’ (CRRS). It shares with the other relational sociologies the idea of avoiding both methodological individualism and holism. The main differences lie in the way social relations are defined, the kind of reality that is attributed to them, how they configure social formations, and the way in which their changes are conceived (morphogenesis and emergence). In particular, this approach is suitable to understand how the morphogenesis of society comes about through social relations, which are the connectors that mediate between agency and social structure. The generative mechanism that feeds social morphogenesis resides in the dynamic (that is, in their ways of operating) of the social relations networks that alter the social molecule constituting structures already in place. Social morphogenesis is a form of surplus of society with respect to itself. Society increases (or decreases) its potential for surplus depending on processes of valorization (or devalorization) of social relations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In proposing a new conceptual framework that systematises and comprehends the complex dynamics of cultural heritage politics in China, the study takes its inspiration from Chinese scholars who have explored the relevance of Guanxi beyond its immediate business context. While current discourse theory acknowledges that heritage-making entails complex relationships that structure this making, there is as yet no systematic theoretical account of how these relationships co-exist, mediate and transform heritage-making. In developing a relational sociological framework based on the work of John Dewey, the analysis of digital heritage-making includes a case study of Nüshu, the dominant language and culture in villages on the southwestern frontier of China's Hunan Province. Using netnography, the study analyses a range of online accounts and websites that form part of the heritage-making process. Drawing on rich digital material that includes online competitions, virtual conversations or comments and digital certificates, the findings highlight the need for a more dynamic relational perspective that acknowledges the mutuality of heritage producers and the process of heritage-making. The findings contribute to a sociological account of heritage-making in China and to a more generalist theory of relational sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the panorama of gesture theories, the contribution of relational sociology based on critical realism is underdeveloped. This contribution seeks to fill the deficit by considering Giovanni Maddalena's theory on the 'complete gesture'. On the one hand, this theory is appreciated as a significant step forward from classical pragmatism. On the other hand, since theories based essentially on phenomenology and semiotics are at risk of nominalism, if we want to understand the gesture from a critical realistic perspective, we need to complement the theory of gesture with a relational social ontology. This means that the theory of the gesture as action (unit act) must be placed within an ontological and epistemological framework, in which Peirce's triangle is related to the latent value of the real as indicated by the sign. A relational alternative to Peirce's semiotic triangle is presented here with the aim of connecting the sign of the gesture to the underlying reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two sociological mainstreams, one based on rational choice theory and one on relational sociology, converge in affirming that relational goods are those that can be enjoyed only if shared with some others. Both agree that it is a kind of goods different from strictly private goods, which are enjoyed alone, and from standard public goods, which are enjoyed impersonally by any number. However, they differ in the way they understand the nature of these goods, how they are generated and what are their social consequences. For the theory of rational choice, they derive from the fact that individuals find gratification in sharing a certain relationship with other people, so that the aggregation of these propensities generates a local public good. According to relational sociology, instead, these goods are emergent sui generis relationships that are sought for their intrinsic value, as bearers of good life for those who share them. The author compares these different approaches, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. He concludes by claiming that relational goods have their own ontological status. They are produced by subjects who reflexively orient one towards the other to generate a relationship from which benefits derive for all those who participate in it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almost all empirical research reveals that social capital is a factor that enhances public goods, but scholars are divided into two strands of thought. According to the first strand, the enhancement of public goods does not need any network of social relations, while, according to the second, enhancement depends on the existence and good functioning of relational networks, to the point that it consists in the creation of social networks. Which one is right? In order to clarify the issue, one should ask: can a social relation have any added social value? If so, how can we conceive of the added social value of social relations, and how can we measure it? The author claims that the added social value of social relations can be observed in those processes through which social capital and public (relational) goods (re)generate or elide each other. These processes can be analyzed as morphogenetic cycles that work in temporal sequences and are not circular or recursive. By adopting this perspective, we can see and measure the added social value of social relations in primary and secondary networks, leading to the emergence of public goods. The relational approach can give abundant evidence as to how and why different public goods are produced and/or enhanced depending on the different added social value of the social relations that constitute them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]