1. The document discusses relational sociology, which views social relations as the most important concept and analysis unit. It focuses on the works of key figures in relational sociology like Harrison White and John Levi Martin. 2. White developed concepts like identity, footing, switchings, and netdoms to analyze social phenomena through a network lens. Martin advocated field theory and heuristics to understand subjective social structures. 3. Relational sociology is compared to analytical sociology, with both sharing a focus on processes but differing in their units of analysis - relations versus actions.

1. On Relational Sociology
2015/10/30 @Matsumoto Seminar Camp

2. Agenda
• A brief introduction to so-called “Relational Sociology”.
• Because this school isn’t yet to be widely known in Japan.
• Today, I focus on actual works rather than conceptual discussion.
• … in relation to my own research.

3. My research projects (independent each other, so far.)
1. How does homophily in japan differs from other countries?
2. Does homophily exist classroom and on-line too?
3. What is consequences if everyone strives to locate in advantageous
positions in social network ?
4. How was cross-cutting social circles formed?

4. What is “Relational Sociology”?
• Relational Sociology is a school that deems social relations the most
important concept.
• Further, some sociologist in this school regard only social relations as
analysis units. = radical relationalism(Powell 2013)
• They describe or explain social phenomena by an analogy to social
networks.
• The founding father of this school is Harrison C. White, who rarely –
probably never uses the term “relational sociology”.
• The name “Relational Sociology” was first used by Emirbayer(1997).

5. Characteristics of Relational Sociology
• Refusing categorical world-views.
- (e.g.) interest is formed in relation to social relations, not to one’s attributes. see also
Gould(1995)
• Trying to overcome the duality of agency-structure.(in detail, see Emirbayer
and Goodwin(1994) or Emirbayer(1997))

6. Forerunners
• George Simmel – Formal Sociology
• Norbert Elias – Configurational Sociology
• Pierre Bourdieu – Structural Relation
• Bruno Latour – Actor Network Theory

7. Relations among Relational Sociologists
(Fuhse 2015: 22)

8. The Core -Harrison C. White
Born in 1930, Washington D.C.
Ph.D(Theoretical Physics, MIT)
Ph.D(Sociology, Princeton)
MAIN WORKS
Anatomy of Kinship – algebraic model of kinship structure
Chains of Opportunity – “vacancy chains” theory
Blockmodeling – a method for grouping by specifying
structural equivalent actors → the Harvard Breakthrough
Identity and Control

9. Identity and Control (1992,2008)
KEY CONCEPTS
• Identitiy
• Footing
• Switchings
• Netdom
• CATNET
• Stories
• Styles
• Rhetorics
• Disciplines
… and so on.

10. Difficulties reading Identity and Control
• White built his theory on the basis of physics. So we need to get used
to the world view that physics adopts.
• His theory includes the problem of reflexibility. (so he often refers to
Luhmann)
• This book is not only about human relations but also about meaning
that emerges from social networks.
• Concepts he uses are cross-referring, so that it is difficult to grasp
exact meanings of them at a first reading.
• Next, we’ll pick up some of White’s concepts and try to outline them.

11. Identity
• Identitiy is the smallest analysis unit for White’s theory.
• The concept of identity can be divided into five senses.
1. The smallest unit of analysis
2. A connected bunch of first-sense-identities
3. The trace of identities in different netdoms (I’ll mention this later)
4. The interpretation of the third sense
5. A dynamic, self-reproducing amalgam across profiles of switchings
(17-18)

12. Footing
• Identities are always seeking footing.
• “identities spring up out of efforts at control in turbulent context.”(1)
• “identity achieves social footing as both a source and a destination of
communications to which identities attribute meaning.”(1)
• “Human social process typically orients around meanings of events
and interpretations of relations among identities.”(3)

13. Netdom, Switchings
• “Identities trigger out of events – that is to say, out of switches in
surroundings – seeking control over uncertainty and thus over fellow
identities. Identities build and articulate ties to other identities in
network-domains, netdoms, for short.”(2)
• “The important point is that, although you log out, your identity in
that forum, your account, remains, so your postings are not deleted
by the logout process. (…) But the interaction has just switched from
one netdom to another. ”
• “Switchings are the vehicles of meaning for identity and control.”(17)

14. CATNET
• A term which combined “CATEGORY” and “NETWORK”
• Dense cluster of network ⇆ Social category to it
• This is meaning in general of CATNET, but White himself gives much
more complicated definition to this concept. (see below)
• “Similarity in attributes will generate groups out of categories. Yet
network ties will continue to be recognized, interwining across
categories without recognition of the network as such. Label this
generalization and loosening of the concept a category-network,
abbreviated as catnet.”(53)

15. In relation to my own research
switching
switching
MeaningMeaning
• Each media-layers are understood as netdoms.
• If it is true that switchings engender meanings, I have to do qualitative
researches as well as quantitative one.

16. Another Giant – John Levi Martin
• He is known as the advocate of “field theory.”
• The concept of “Heuristics” is also important (for my research.)

17. From Social Structures
• Strucure is not only objective but also subjective.
• “Since the structures that will be examined here
are simple, the imperatives for action that
constitute their subjective correlatives are also
simple; I shall refer to such subjective
understandings as heuristics.”(18)
• “Heuriustics work well because they are
“ecologically rational” in that they make use of
predictable features of the natural or social
environment to simplify otherwise daunting
process tasks.”

18. In relation to my own research
• Now I suppose one’s own utilities are calculated on the basis of objective
local network, that is, second-order neighborhood from point of view of ego
It reflects the condition of imperfect information.
• But is it true? This conversion means extracting subnetwork from the
objective network. But This should be the rare case of heuristics actors
actually adopts.

19. Is Relatinal Sociology structuralism?
• Partly false.
• According to Dépelteau(2013), there are three types of RS.
• Deterministic RS – social networks determine one’s action (≡ strucuturalism?)
• Co-deterministic RS – adding person’s ability to deterministic RS
• Transactional sociology – “deep” relational ontology. No need to presuppose
“agency-structure” or “subject-object”. There are only transactions between
actors.

20. Masterpieces of relational sociology
• Padgett and Ansell(1993)
- Explaining the Rise of the Medici. They revealed that the Medici was located in the
position that brokered economic “new men” and conventional aristocracies.
(c.f. Burt(1992))
• Gould(1991,1995)
- About the mobilization in Paris Commune. This research revealed that insurgents
were mobilized by social relations (e.g. neighborhood) rather than their class interests.
This implies that social identity is not determined by their attributes, but among social
relations.
• Bearman and Stovel(2000)
- converting life-stories of early Nazis into narrative networks and analyzing them. In
the result, stories about “becoming” and “being” Nazi different in the extent of
forming “self”.

21. In comparison to “Analytical Sociology”
• Analytical Sociology is a research program led by Peter Hedström(2005).
• Trying to shed light on mechanisms behind social phenomena.
• Explaining social phenomena rather than describing it.
• If you’d like to know in detail, see 打越・前嶋(in press)

22. In comparison to “Analytical Sociology”
• Two views have much in common.
(ex. Opposition to “variable sociology”, Emphasizing on process, etc.)
• According to Abbott(2007),
Mechanism Views (=AS,RAT) focus on “agent” and “purpose”
Relational Views (=RS) focus on “action” and “scene”
• I contend that two views are not necessarily contradictory or exclusive.

23. Intersection of two paradigms: An example
• “Chains of Affection” written by Bearman et al.(2004)
• Dealing with social relations by analytical methods (ex. ERGM)
(Bearman et al. 2014: 58)

24. Open question
• What is the difference between “action” and “relation”?
-For example, “friend” relation is often equivalent to “acting-with”
-Crossley once defined social relations as “lived trajectories of iterated
interaction”(Crossley 2010). This definitions is much about “expectation”. But
how much can this metaphysical existence help us understand social action?
• Can we transform all social phenomena into relational forms?
-Many social phenomena can be converted into adjacent matrix. (ex. affiliation)
-but what cannot be graspd by the relational approach.

25. Reference
• Abbott, A. (2007). Mechanisms and relations. Sociologica, 1(2), 0-0.
• Bearman, P. S., Moody, J., & Stovel, K. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of
adolescent romantic and sexual networks1. American journal of sociology, 110(1),
44-91.
• Bearman, P. S., & Stovel, K. (2000). Becoming a Nazi: A model for narrative
networks. Poetics, 27(2), 69-90.
• Burt, R. S. (2009). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard
university press.
• Crossley, N. (2010). Towards relational sociology. Routledge.
• Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem
of agency. American journal of sociology, 1411-1454.
• Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology 1. American journal of
sociology, 103(2), 281-317.

26. Reference
• Gould, R. V. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris Commune,
1871. American Sociological Review, 716-729.
• Fuhse, J. A. (2015). Theorizing social networks: the relational sociology of and
around Harrison White. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 15-44.Gould, R.
V. (1995). Insurgent identities: Class, community, and protest in Paris from 1848 to
the Commune. University of Chicago Press.
• Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical
sociology (pp. 114-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Martin, J. L. (2009). Social structures. Princeton University Press.
• Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust Action and the Rise of the Medici,
1400-1434. American journal of sociology, 1259-1319.
• Powell, C., & Dépelteau, F. (2013). Conceptualizing relational sociology:
Ontological and theoretical issues. Palgrave Macmillan.
• White, H. C. (2008). Identity and control: How social formations emerge.
Princeton University Press.