Lectures on Relational Sociology: basics & advancements

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: REALISMcharacterized by being: - Critical (vspositivist, materialist or naïve/directrealism) - Analytical(vsempiricistontologies, ontologicalempiricism) - Relational (vs ‘essentialist’ ontologies) (Itsmainadversaryisradical constructionism, whichclaimsthat: ‘The real is what knowledge indicates as real’ or ‘reality is the same observation’) (substanceand relation are co-principles of allthatexists)

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 • Neitherholism (becauseitreduces the human person to a product of structures; the whole the parts), • normethodologicalindividualism (becauseitreduces the human person to the ‘individual’, whereas the agent (s/he) is an individual-in-relation) • But RELATIONAL ANALYSIS (rules, research design, relationaltools) (cf. P. Donati,L’analisi 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 insightintosome 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

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 relationaldifferentiation

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 threesemantics of identitywith which social theory can work Basic semantics classicalmodernafter-modern monisticdualisticrelational 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 itsexternal world; It can be conceivedin terms of relationalreflexivity 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(simbolicreference: Max Weber) • 3° semantics) Emergingphenomenon(relation as an emergent: Simmel’sWechselwirkung or ‘effect of reciprocity’, the ‘Third’ created by the exchange or, better,reciprocalactionbetween Ego and Alter)

12. Relational sociology combinesthe 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(relationalgoods) which are neither private nor public • 2° ex.) We can see new citizenshiprights(relationalrights)that are notcivil, 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 givingbeyond ‘charities’

15. 1° ex.) The existence of social goodswhich are neither public nor private (in the modernsense of thesecategories) Antonine Wagner has presented a theory of social goods that lacks the L dimension

17. 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) 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’ classicaltheoryon welfare policies identifiestypes 1,2,3 (G,A,L) butobscures the social integrationdimension (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? Whatabout welfare in the social integration dimension (I)? Up to whom?

21. 4° ex.) The relational theory can see the emergence of free giving in differentiated social forms Classicaltheory (M. Mauss) views free giving: (i) in primitive societies, as an archaicformof social exchange (ii) in moderntimes, asa form of charity by the state or by voluntaryorganizations to the poor BUT, in contemporary society, free givingemergesas a highlydifferentiatedform of feeding new social relations  (next)

23. In order to capture the reality and the makingof new social relations weneed an adequaterelationalanalysisrules, research design, methodologicaltoolsto see social relations as generative mechanismsand targets for applied (professional) sociologyCf. P. Donati, L’analisi relazionale: regole, quadro metodologico, esempi, in Id. (ed.), Sociologia, Cedam, Padova, 2006, pp. 195-251.

24. A network of 3 nodes has 3 relations Ego Alter T hird A network of relations among 3 nodes has 9 relations of first, second, and third order) ( Ego Alter T hird Twobasicpoints: first1) Relationalanalysislooks at social networks asnetworks of social relations, notonlyas networks of nodesNoticethe difference

25. Twobasicpoints: second2) The observationshould be relational, whichmeansthat the social relation should be seenas a generative mechanism: 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) On the morphogeneticprocesssee: 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 relationshas been changed by the order of interactionsin the cycle (T1-T4)

28. Comparingrelational and relationisticsociologies Relationistic (transactional) sociologies: do notsee the emergent (Y in the previous figure) - maintainthat relations generate structures thathave no power (Emirbayer, Dépelteau) Relational (emergentist) sociologies: see the emergent reality (Y in the previous figure) - claimthat relations (asstructures) havepeculiarcausalpowers (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. Archer«Every social phenomenon comes in a SAC interplay(Structure, Agency, Culture)» - which I share - can be WRITTEN in the following way (micro level): C U L T U R E Social order (SAC) (relational & interactional)ORDER OF RELATION Conditioning structureConditioningstructure Agent1 Agent2 (agency1) (agency2) Legenda (composition ORDER OF of the relation): INTERACTION Structure = means norms Culture = value  goal BLACK BOX EMERGENT 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 basicreason for the peculiarities of the relationalparadigmlies in the factthatitbringsinto play the latent reality of the social and thereforeitmakes the relation a matter of emergence andinstantiation (Peirce) G (‘political’) A-G Area of interests (representable) A I (‘economic’) (‘social’) L-I area of identities (onlyappresentable) L (‘values’) (here are the ‘boundaries with the human’, i.e. the latent reality whichshould 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 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

37. 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)

40. Introducing the distinction between:Structural effects (constraints on actors and their relations)for instance: the functional division of labour forceswork and private/family life to separate and specializeRelational 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) Pragmaticsconsists in networking, or network interventionsfor solving social issues on the basis of the followingassumptions: • Since social issues (in a specificcontext) stem from a peculiardynamics of social relations and theiroutcomes, • Then: the remedialinterventions must be sought in the modification of social relations (the social network), • by relyingupon the ‘naturalpotentials’ of social groups (i.e. relational networks), throughindirect (notdirect) interventions [calledrelationalsteering]

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 co Communities of citizens Public services Regular producer consumer Network 1 Network 2 (traditional delivery of services) (co-production) Individualfeedback Relationalfeedback Networks with relations basedNetworks with relations based upon positive/negative feedbacksuponrelationalfeedbacks (personal reflexivity) (relationalreflexivity)

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. Furtherreadings 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.