Elias On Figurational Sociology

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 premise shared yesteryear all actor-centered versions of sociology is that individuals too their actions a...

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 premise shared yesteryear all actor-centered versions of sociology is that individuals too their actions are the rock-bottom degree of the social world. Every other social fact derives from facts at this level. Norbert Elias raises a rigid too credible challenge to this ontological supposition inwards his work, offering a persuasion of social activity that makes "figurations" of actors simply equally existent equally private actors themselves. By figuration he agency something similar an interlocking laid of individuals whose actions are a fluid serial of reactions to too expectations nigh others. Figurations include both conflict too cooperation. And he is insistent that figurations cannot last reduced to the amount of a collection of independent actors too their choices. "Imagine the interlocking of the plans too actions, non of two, but of ii G or ii 1000000 interdependent players. The ongoing procedure which 1 encounters inwards this illustration does non accept house independently of private people whose plans too actions hold it going. Yet it has a construction too demands an explanation sui generis. It cannot last explained inwards damage of the ‘ideas’ or the ‘actions’ of private people" (52). So adept sociology needs to pay attending to figurations, non simply individuals too their mental states.

Elias's most brilliant illustration of what he agency yesteryear a figuration comes from his reflections on the game of soccer too the catamenia of activity across ii teams too twenty-two private players over extended episodes of play. These arguments constitute the primary theme of book vii of his collected writings, Elias too Dunning, Quest for Excitement: Sport too Leisure inwards the Civilising Process. (This is peculiarly relevant at a fourth dimension when millions of people are viewing the Euro Cup.)

The observation of an ongoing game of football game tin plough over notice last of considerable aid equally an introduction to the agreement of such damage equally interlocking plans too actions. Each squad may possess got planned its strategy inwards accordance amongst the noesis of their ain too their opponents’ skills too foibles. However, equally the game proceeds, it ofttimes produces constellations which were non intended or foreseen yesteryear either side. In fact, the flowing designing formed yesteryear players too ball inwards a football game game tin plough over notice serve equally a graphic illustration non solely of the concept of ‘figurations’ but also of that of ‘social process’. The game-process is just that, a flowing figuration of human beings whose actions too experiences continuously interlock, a social procedure inwards miniature. One of the most instructive aspects of the fast-changing designing of a football game game is the fact that this designing is formed yesteryear the moving players of both sides. If 1 concentrated one’s attending solely on the activities of the players of 1 squad too turned a blind oculus to the activities of the other, 1 could non follow the game. The actions too experiences of the members of the squad which 1 tried to regain inwards isolation too independently of the actions too perceptions of the other would stay incomprehensible. In an ongoing game, the ii teams shape amongst each other a unmarried figuration. It requires a capacity for distancing oneself from the game to recognize that the actions of each side constantly interlock amongst those of their opponents too so that the ii opposing sides shape a unmarried figuration. So practise antagonistic states. Social processes are ofttimes uncontrollable because they are fuelled yesteryear enmity. Partisanship for 1 side or to a greater extent than or less other tin plough over notice easily blur that fact. (51-52; italics mine)

Here is a to a greater extent than theoretical formulation from Elias, from "Dynamics of sports groups" inwards the same volume.

Let us showtime amongst the concept of ‘figuration’. It has already been said that a game is the changing figuration of the players on the field. This agency that the figuration is non solely an aspect of the players. It is non equally 1 sometimes seems to believe if 1 uses related expressions such equally ‘social pattern’, ‘social group’, or ‘society’, something abstracted from private people. Figurations are formed yesteryear individuals, equally it were ‘body too soul’. If 1 watches the players standing too moving on the acre inwards constant inter-dependence, 1 tin plough over notice genuinely consider them forcing a continuously changing figuration. If groups or societies are large, 1 unremarkably cannot consider the figurations their private members shape amongst 1 another. Nevertheless, inwards these cases likewise people shape figurations amongst each other — a city, a church, a political party, a state — which are no less existent than the 1 formed yesteryear players on a football game field, fifty-fifty though 1 cannot accept them inwards at a glance.

To envisage groupings of people equally figurations inwards this sense, amongst their dynamics, their problems of tension too of tension command too many others, fifty-fifty though 1 cannot consider them hither too now, requires a specific training. This is 1 of the tasks of figurational sociology, of which the introduce essay is an example. At present, a adept bargain of uncertainty even then exists amongst regard to the nature of that phenomenon to which 1 refers equally ‘society’. Sociological theories ofttimes appear to showtime from the supposition that ‘groups’ or ‘societies’, too ‘social phenomean’ inwards general, are something abstracted from private people, or at to the lowest degree that they are non quite equally ‘real’ equally individuals, whatever that may mean. The game of football game — equally a small-scale model — tin plough over notice aid to right this view. It shows that figurations of individuals are neither to a greater extent than nor less existent than the individuals who shape them. Figurational sociology is based on observations such equally this. In contrast to sociological theories which care for societies equally if they were mere names, an ‘ideal type’, a sociologist’s construction, too which are inwards that feel representative of sociological nominalism, it represents a sociological realism. Individuals e'er come upward inwards figurations too figurations are e'er formed yesteryear individuals. (199)

This ontological lay converges closely amongst the "relational" persuasion of social activity advocated yesteryear the novel pragmatists equally good equally Chuck Tilly. The pragmatists' thought that private actions derive from the catamenia of opportunities too reactions instigated yesteryear the movements of others is peculiarly relevant. But Elias's persuasion also seems to possess got to a greater extent than or less resonance amongst the thought of methodological localism equally well: "individuals inwards local social interactions are the molecule of the social world."

What seems right hither is an insight into the "descriptive ontology" of the social world. Elias credibly establishes the fact of entangled, flowing patterns of activity yesteryear individuals during an episode, too makes it credible that these collective patterns don't derive fully inwards whatsoever straight way from the private intentions of the participants. "Figurations are simply equally existent equally individuals." So the sociologist's ontology needs to include figurations. Moreover the insight seems to cast incertitude equally good on the analytical sociologists' strategy of "dissection". These points propose that Elias provides a dry reason for a critique of ontological individualism. And Elias tin plough over notice last understood equally calling for to a greater extent than realism inwards sociological description. 

What this analysis does non furnish is whatsoever hint nigh how to job this thought inwards constructing explanations of larger-scale social outcomes or patterns. Are nosotros forced to halt amongst the uncovering of a laid of figurations inwards play inwards a given social occurrence? Are nosotros unable to furnish whatsoever underlying explanation of the emergence of the figuration itself? Answers to these questions are non clear inwards Elias's text. And yet this is subsequently all the role of explanatory sociology.

It is also non completely convincing to me that the figurations described yesteryear Elias could not last derived through something similar an agent-based simulation. The derivation of flocking too swarming conduct inwards fish too birds seems to last exactly this -- a generative draw of piece of work organisation human relationship of the emergence of a collective phenomenon (figuration) from assumptions nigh the decision-making of the individuals. So it seems possible that nosotros powerfulness seem at Elias's lay equally seeing a challenge to actor-based sociology that forthwith tin plough over notice last addressed rather than a refutation. 

In this feel it appears that figurational sociology is inwards the same lay equally diverse versions of microsociology considered elsewhere (e.g. Goffman): it identifies a theoretical lacuna inwards rational alternative theory too sparse theories of the actor, but it does non furnish recommendations for how to driblet dead on amongst a to a greater extent than adequate explanatory theory.

(Recall the before give-and-take on non-generative social facts too ontological individualism; link. That post makes a related declaration for the existence of social facts that cannot last derived from facts nigh the private actors involved. In each illustration the job derives from the highly path-dependent nature of social outcomes.)