Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. Manifest for a Relational Sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, Volume 103, Number. 2. (Sep.

, 1997), pp. 281-317. Tetyana Pudrovska In his article, Emirbayer articulates a fundamental dilemma facing sociologists today: Should we conceive of the social world as 1) consisting of substances and static things; or 2) dynamic, unfolding relations and processes. It is the latter approach that he focuses on in more depth and ultimately promotes as the most valuable one. Most importantly, Emirbayer argues that relational (or transactional) perspective has important theoretical and methodological implications for the study of social phenomena at different aggregate levels. The more traditional approach, which Emirbayer identifies as substantialism, is embodied in certain substances, such as things, beings, and essences. These substances constitute the fundamental units of all inquiry and are assumed to be preformed, self-subsistent entities that only then involve themselves in dynamic flows. Emirbayer argues that substantialist thinking comes in two varieties: self-action and inter-action. One prevalent approach guided by the notion of self-action begins with rational calculating actors but assumes the giveness and fixity of their various interests and goals. Pregiven entities are seen to generate self-action; even as actors engage in role-playing with other actors, their underlying interests remain unaltered. The players are assumed to make their choices independently of each other. Another prevalent approach in the self-action tradition takes norm-following individuals as its basic units of analysis and depicts individuals as selfpropelling, self-subsistent entities that pursue internalized norms fixed for the duration of the action. The second key category of substantialism is inter-action which posits that entities no longer generate their own action, but the relevant action takes place among the entities themselves. Yet, entities remain fixed and unchanged throughout such interaction. The idea of inter-action is reflected in the so-called variable-centered approach dominating contemporary sociology. Variable-based analysis detaches elements from their spatiotemporal contexts, analyzing them apart from their relations with other elements within fields of mutual determination and flux. According to Emirbayer, fundamentally opposed to these two types of substantialism is relationalism, and more specifically, the trans-action perspective. The units of analysis within this perspective derive their meaning, significance, and identity from the changing functional roles they play within a given transaction. Transaction as a dynamic unfolding process becomes a unit of analysis. Individual persons, whether strategic or norm-following, are inseparable from the transactional contexts within which they are embedded. Thus, substantilism and relationalism represent fundamentally different points of view on the very nature and constitution of social reality. However, these schools of thought rarely correspond with exact precision to an individual scholars approach or life work. In fact, most scholarship involves a crisscrossing of ideas, which combine aspects of transaction, interactional, and/or self-action themes.

2 Emirbayer argues that from the transactional perspective, there are no discrete, pre-given units, such as the individual or society, that are the ultimate starting points of analysis as there is in the self-actional approach, because individuals/societies are considered to be inseparable from contexts. Society is not merely comprised of individuals or abstract vitality. In the relational approach, variable-based analysis isnt viable because there are no fixed entities. Relations are dynamic among and between units. Here, Emirbayer invokes Marxs argument that capital is not a thing, but a social relation between persons which is mediated through things. In line with Emirbayers thinking, we suggest that postmodernist turn to language in social sciences also helped develop relational approach to discourses as the embodiment of culture, given postmodernist and poststructuralist emphasis on multiple voices, dialogue, and deconstruction of grand narratives. A good example to illustrate Emirbayers point of view would be studies of globalization (especially, global discourses) which pay specific attention to the place and look at the interaction of local and global discourses: how global elements are appropriated by local discourses, and how local discursive elements travel to the global arena. This approach to culture and discourse is inherently relational since it focuses on the interplay among discourses. Emirbayer provides an analysis of the theoretical implications of the transactional approach and argues that key sociological concepts can be reconceptualized from a relational perspective. Using specific concepts like power, equality, and freedom, Emirbayer articulates a persuasive argument for the reformulation of our understanding of the connection between the macro and micro levels of inquiry. Thus, power should be re-conceptualized as emerging out of the very way in which figurations of relationships are patterned and operate. Inequality can be seen as coming largely from the solutions that elite and nonelite actors improvise in the face of recurrent organizational problems. Likewise, freedom should not be considered apart from the concrete transactions in which individuals engage within cultural, social structural, and social psychological contexts of action. Finally, agency can also be reconceptualized from a relational point of view as inseparable from the unfolding dynamics of situations, especially from the problematic features of those situations. It signifies modes of response to problems impinging upon it through sometimes broad expanses of time as well as space. Emirbayer further argues that the transactional perspective has not only theoretical implications, but also opens up many new directions for research. He focuses primarily on three relational contexts within which all social action unfolds: social structure, culture, and social psychology. Relational approach has most widely been applied to the analysis of social structure in the form of social network analysis. As for the sociological study of culture, from a relational point of view, cultural formations entail not individual attitudes or values, but rather bundles of communications, relations, or transactions. The relational studies within social psychology have primarily focused on emotions which are viewed as inherent not in personalities or attitudes but rather in situational ways of acting in conversational encounters. We argue that though Emirbayer pays due attention to the theoretical and methodological implications of transactional approach, he does not shed light on how theory and methods could be integrated from a relational perspective. For example, speaking about re-conceptualizing power in relational terms, he does not show that there are different types of power, and

3 operational definitions within the variable-based approach may be more relational than overarching theoretical definitions that Emirbayer criticizes because operationalizations of power may actually differentiate among context-specific types of power. Whenever Emirbayer provides those far-reaching theoretical reformulations in relational terms, one needs to think about how research designs based on new theoretical definitions will change. In sum, Emirbayer makes a largely successful attempt to reinterpret society not as an autonomous, internally organized, self-sustaining system, but rather as a diversity of disparate interaction networks (institutions economy, military, politics) of social interaction that converge into coherent, distinct social systems. This interpretation of the social world is particularly useful when attempting to localize the macrosociological definitions of society that is usually presented as an abstract, yet fixed, system. Transitioning from the macro level to the micro level is accomplished with more ease when society is reconceptualized as comprised of interaction networks. Finally, Emirbayer points to some limitations of the transactional approach, the main of which are the problem of boundary specifications, the problem of network dynamics, and the problem of causality. He suggests how these problems may be potentially overcome.