Pierpaolo Donati

Manifesto for a critical realist relational sociology

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.

Giving and Social Relations: The Culture of Free Giving and its Differentiation Today

1.1. Free giving is a universal category of the human spirit, but it has different meanings and roles in different historical periods and cultures. Here I would like to show, in a sociological perspective, how it may be thought of today, with reference to processes that change its societal importance profoundly, both in terms of generalization and of differentiation. My thesis is that the free gift, after first having been placed on the margins of society in the modern period is now emerging increasingly as an indispensable element of generalized social welfare action that becomes specific and takes concrete form in an increasingly wide variety of ways. As society becomes more complex, making a gift implies possessing greater skill and choosing from a greater variety of types (one must choose which type of gift to make and then know how to do it in terms of means, purposes and rules). What we must speak about here is the differentiation and integration between the different ethics and functions of gifts. From a cultural viewpoint the central problem is definitely that of recognizing a free gift as a motor for generalized social relations, including those of exchange. This recognition is often absent, scarce or distorted. From a practical viewpoint, the problem is above all that of how giving is practised in different social organizations in which the sets of regulations (incentives and punishments) condition the opportunities that they offer and involve.

Morphogenesis and Social Networks: Relational Steering not Mechanical Feedback

What is a morphogenetic society? Why do we speak of the ‘morphogenesis’ of society? The concept of morphogenesis (MG) in the social sciences can be traced back to the organic system theory. This theory became problematic once research showed that social networks cannot be treated as systems. Along the way, the relational nature of MG was revealed ever more clearly. The new perspective ventured entails moving beyond a mechanical definition of the concepts of variety, selection, positive/negative feedbacks, and the stabilization processes that contribute to realizing MG. It is necessary to redefine these concepts from the perspective of a relational paradigm of MG. This chapter tries to explain and understand the production of society as a process of MG that takes place in terms of relational steering, which is characterized by recourse to relational feedbacks (a particular kind of response to positive feedback) that generates emergent social effects. In many ways, the incipient morphogenetic society is a social order that has a ‘relational genome’ working in terms of a many-valued and relationally transjunctive logic.

Modernization and relational reflexivity

This paper deals with the issue of reflexivity in the different spheres of society, affected by the processes of globalization. The author argues that each sub-system of society is more or less differentiating itself according to a (prevailing) code or register of reflexivity. Global contextualism changes the way people manage the distinction between the particular and the universal (i.e. their perceived ‘different identities’) according to a plurality of reflexive processes. A differentiating universalism emerges within the different spheres of society (the market, the political system, the associational or third-sector system, and the system of families and informal primary networks). In principle, within these spheres many different codes of reflexivity can be detected. The four types of reflexivity detected by M.S. Archer can be correlated with the different spheres/sub-systems of society in order to see how the latter change their operations and overall configuration. In conclusion, it is shown that the thesis of ‘reflexive modernity’ is a reductive and an undifferentiated way of looking at what is happening in our globalizing society. The differentiation of reflexivity does not represent a further stage of modernity but, rather, it generates an ‘after-modern’ society through what the author calls ‘relational reflexivity’.

L'approccio relazionale al capitale sociale

The relational approach to social capital(by Pierpaolo Donati) - ARBASTRACT: The essay questions the theory of social capital as formulated and developed by political scientists (such as R. Putnam), asking whether it brings something really new and different from the theory put forward by A. de Tocqueville and other scholars when dealing with the issue of the relevance of associative networks for the flourishing of civic culture. The Author claims that the political theory of social capital, which conceives of social capital as civicness, does not add any substantial contribution to what we already know from the political scientist of the past. Moreover, it is quite often misleading in so far as it obscures and depreciates the properties and qualities of social capital as a specific social relation. The Author outlines a new approach to the study of social capital, called relational approach, which distinguishes itself from the individualistic and holistic approaches in the social sciences. According to the relational theory of society elaborated by Donati, social capital is a property and a quality of social relationships, not an attribute of individuals or social structures; it is not a mixture of the two either. This theory has many advantages: first, it leads us to observe and analyse in a very sophisticated way the different analytical components of social capital (by using a revised version of the Parsonian AGIL scheme, as developed by the relational theory); second, it permits to distinguish between the various forms of social capital (primary, communitarian and civic or generalized social capital); third, it is able to show in which social networks different kinds of social capital are produced with respect to two paradigmatic societal arrangements, viz. the lib-lab and the societal configurations. Its main achievement is to put a new light on the most original and genuine aspects of social capital, namely the fact that social capital generates what the Author calls relational goods. As a relational good, social capital is a kind of good which is neither an asset possessed by the individual, nor a collective property belonging to some social structure, but a peculiar configuration of those social networks which are shared by people who will not be able to produce such goods outside their reciprocal relations. This theory is evidence based. Last, but not least, it can show where, how and why social capital may produce relational bads instead of relational goods.

Morphogenic Society and the Structure of Social Relations

The aim of this chapter is 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 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. This surplus is produced through the relationality that agents/actors create in their interactions. We need a general theory of social relations that is able to show how the molecular structure of social relations in different contexts is altered. The morphogenetic surplus does not derive from structural effects as much as it is generated by ‘emergent relational effects’. Society increases (or decreases) its potential for surplus depending on processes of valorization (or devalorization) of social relations. Examples are given with reference to the crisis of the typically modern societal arrangements (lib/lab) and the birth of an after-modern society.

La política social en el estado de bienestar: el desafío de los sistemas complejos

Es incorrecto asumir que la actual crisis en los medios del estado de bienestar supone tambien una crisis estructural en la politica social; la politica social en la sociedad postindustrial debe ser distinguida, estructural y culturalmente, del estado de bienestar. Asi, se discuten la naturaleza de la ciudadania y de los valores en la sociedad post-industrial. Los sistemas sociales post-industriales se caracterizan por la complejidad y la diferenciacion social. Las tendencias actuales van hacia la desregulacion, la descentralizacion, y la privatizacion. Se hace necesario entender un nuevo marco conceptual para estos procesos sociales complejos; el articulo hace una tentativa para definir ese marco basandose en el interaccionismo simbolico Talcott Parsons y Niklas Luhmann

Beyond the dilemmas of multiculturalism: recognition through ‘relational reason’

Recent sociological research has shown that the ideology of multiculturalism, after having been adopted as official policy in many countries, has generated more negative than positive effects (fragmentation of society, separation of minorities, cultural relativism). This article discusses the possible alternatives to multiculturalism, asking whether the path of interculturality can be a solution or not. The idea of interculturality has the advantage of stressing the inter, namely what lies in between different cultures. But it does not yet possess a conceptual and effective means to understand and handle the problems of the public sphere. To go over the failures of multiculturalism and the fragilities of interculturality, a lay approach to the coexistence of cultures is required, which is able to give strength back to Reason, through a new semantics of inter-human diversity. The author suggests the development of ‘relational reason’, beyond the forms of rationality already known. To make human reason relational might be the best way to imagine a social order which is able to humanize the globalizing processes and the increasing migrations.

Social Mechanisms and Their Feedbacks: Mechanical vs Relational Emergence of New Social Formations

The concept of social mechanism (SM) has been defined until now as a causal connection between a set of inputs (first order elements and activities) and certain ‘regular’ outputs. The explanation for the causal relation involved in this process has been of a deterministic (mechanical) type, although in more complex terms than a ‘push-pull’ explanation. In this contribution, I argue that in the field of social phenomena, unlike the physical world, determinism is a limiting case that should be framed in a generalised theory of how SMs operate. I maintain that SMs (conceived as causal configurations that tendentially transform a set of elements and relations into regular outputs) are, instead, sensitive to agency and the social context upon which they continue to depend. The reason is that regular outputs emerge through second order feedbacks (relational feedbacks) that establish the selection of the variety and variability produced by first order positive feedbacks among the agents/actors involved. In this framework it is possible to understand that there exist not only SMs that generate specific causal chains having predetermined outputs, but also SMs that create new social forms as outcomes endowed with a dynamic stability open to contingencies. Some practical examples are given to develop the argument.

Ciudadanía y sociedad civil: Dos paradigmas (ciudadanía lib/lab y ciudadanía societaria)

Resumen es: La tesis del autor es que, con la crisis del Estado-Nacion y del Estado social, en Europa, nos encontramos en la transicion a una nueva formacion histori...