common.pageHeaderLogo.altText676e87ce894b6

Artykuły

Nr 1(12) (2017): Zwrot relacyjny w socjologii

Place of Culture in Relational Sociology

  • Elżbieta Hałas
Przesłane
22 May 2020
Opublikowane
01-04-2017

Abstrakt

Margaret S. Archer and Pierpaolo Donati have independently developed relational approaches in the social sciences. Combining morphogenetic theory and the relational theory of society opens up new research perspectives. This article attempts to investigate relational conceptions of culture by answering two questions: one related to the nature of culture and the other to the place of culture in relational sociology. Assuming the complementarity of the theories of both sociologists, the possibility that their conceptions may be inconsistent or even contradict each other is not discounted. The article discusses the issue of symbolization and the presence of processes of semiosis within relational sociology. It is argued that apart from the Cultural System and the Socio-Cultural interaction assumed by Archer’s analytical dualism, a more general category of Cultural Reality can be introduced. This theme is further discussed in the light of Donati’s views on human reality; he postulates including the relational frame of symbolization. Analysis shows that culture occupies a central place in relational sociology. This article exposes the complexity of the nature of culture in human reality.

Bibliografia

  1. Alexander J.C. 2006. The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology, Ox¬ford University Press.
  2. Archer M.S. 1990. Theory, Culture, and Post-Industrial Society, [in:] Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, ed. M. Featherstone, Sage Publications, pp. 97–119.
  3. Archer M.S. 1996. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory, Cambridge University Press.
  4. Archer M.S. 2000. Being Human: the Problem of Agency, Cambridge University Press.
  5. Archer M.S. 2012. The Reflexive Imperative in Late Modernity, Cambridge University Press.
  6. Archer M.S. 2013. Social Morphogenesis and the Prospects of Morphogenic Society, [in:] Social Morphogenesis, ed. M.S. Archer, Springer, pp. 1–22.
  7. Archer M.S. 2015. Cultural Reproaches to Relationist Sociology, [in:] P. Donati, M.S. Archer, The Relational Subject, Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–179.
  8. Archer M.S., Elder-Vass D. 2012. Cultural System or Norm Circles? An Exchange, “European Journal of Social Theory”, vol. 15(1), pp. 93–115.
  9. Bauman Z. 1999. Culture as Praxis, Sage Publications.
  10. Brock T., Carrigan M., Scambler G. 2017. Introduction, [in:] Structure, Culture and Agency: Selected Papers of Margaret Archer, eds. T. Brock, M. Carrigan, G. Scambler, Routledge, pp. XIII–XXI.
  11. Donati P. 2011. Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences, Routledge.
  12. Donati P., Archer M.S. 2015a. The Relational Subject, Cambridge University Press.
  13. Donati P., Archer M.S. 2015b. Introduction: Relational Sociology: Reflexive and Realist, [in:] P. Donati, M.S. Archer, The Relational Subject, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–32.
  14. Elias N. 1978. What is Sociology, transl. S. Mennell, G. Morrissey, Columbia University Press.
  15. Emirbayer M. 1997. Manifesto for a Relational Sociology, “American Journal of Sociology”, vol. 103(2), pp. 281–317.
  16. Gattamorta L. 2005. Teorie del simbolo. Studio sulla sociologia fenomenologica, FrancoAngeli.
  17. Hall J.R., Neitz M.J. 1993. Culture: Sociological Perspectives, Prentice Hall.
  18. Hałas E. 2002. Symbolism and Social Phenomena: Toward the Integration of Past and Current Theoretical Approaches, “European Journal of Social Theory”, vol. 5(3), pp. 351–366.
  19. Hałas E. 2008. Social Symbolism: Forms and Functions—a Pragmatist Perspective, “Studies in Symbolic Interaction”, vol. 30, pp. 131–149.
  20. Hałas E. 2011. Sieci społeczne i znaczenia: Harrisona C. White’a teoria procesów socjokulturowych [Social Networks and Meanings: Harrison C. White’s Theory of Sociocultural Processes], [in:] H.C. White, Tożsamość i kontrola. Jak wyłaniają się formacje społeczne, transl. A. Hałas, Zakład Wydawniczy Nomos, pp. XIII–XL.
  21. Jacobs M.D., Hanrahan N.W. 2005. Introduction, [in:] The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture, eds. M.D. Jacobs, N.W. Hanrahan, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 1–13.
  22. Kroeber A.L. 1952. The Nature of Culture, University of Chicago Press.
  23. Mische A. 2011. Relational Sociology, Culture and Agency, [in:] Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, eds. J. Scott, P. Carrington, Sage Publications, pp. 80–97.
  24. Popper K. 1978. Three Worlds: The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, pp. 143–166, http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/p/popper80. pdf, accessed 12.01.2017.
  25. Porpora D.V. 2015. Reconstructing Sociology: The Critical Realist Approach, Cambridge University Press.
  26. Sorokin P.A. 1937–1941. Social and Cultural Dynamics, vol. I–IV, Bedminster Press.
  27. Terenzi P., Boccacin L., Prandini R., eds. 2016. Lessico della sociologia relazionale, il Mulino.
  28. White H.C. 1992. Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action, Princeton University Press.
  29. White H.C. 2008. Identity and Control: How Social Formations Emerge, Princeton University Press.
  30. Znaniecki F. 1919. Cultural Reality, University of Chicago Press.
  31. Znaniecki F. 1934. The Method of Sociology, Farrar and Rinehart.
  32. Znaniecki F. 1952. Cultural Sciences: Their Origin and Development, University of Illinois Press.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Podobne artykuły

21-30 z 167

Możesz również Rozpocznij zaawansowane wyszukiwanie podobieństw dla tego artykułu.