Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:27:38.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Faces of the “Relational Turn”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2016

Peeter Selg
Peeter Selg*
Affiliation:
Tallinn University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the previous decade, the literature on “relational approach” has burgeoned in the social sciences. Recently, a “relational turn” in political science was called for in a symposium in this journal (McClurg and Young, 2011). The participants perceived a promising path for such a “turn” by introducing social network analysis (SNA) into political science. This call is informed by a conviction that the central concept of political science— that is, power—is relational. Considering this viewpoint, this article argues that there are two different understandings of the connection between the qualifier “relational” and the concept of power, referred to as the “Anglo-American” and the “Continental” perspectives. I contend that symposium participants conceived of the connection from only the Anglo-American perspective and that the Continental understanding would add extra value for political science.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 27 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–52.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton. 1963. “Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework.” American Political Science Review 57 (3): 632–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevir, Mark, and Rhodes, Rod. 2006. Governance Stories. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, Stephen, and Lopez-Kidwell, Virginie. 2011. “Network Theory.” In The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, ed. Scott, John and Carrington, Peter J., 40–54. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Clegg, Stewart. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1957. “The Concept of Power.” Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201–15.Google Scholar
Dépelteau, François. 2008. “Relational Thinking: A Critique of Co‐Deterministic Theories of Structure and Agency.” Sociological Theory 26 (1): 51–73.Google Scholar
Dewey, John, and Bentley, Arthur. 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Elias, Norbert. 1978. What Is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 103 (2): 281–317.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. Volume I: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–95.Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton. 2004. The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2006. “Political Ontology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, ed. Goodin, Robert and Tilly, Charles, 78–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick, and Nexon, Daniel. 1999. “Relations before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 5 (3): 291–332.Google Scholar
Lazer, David. 2011. “Networks in Political Science: Back to the Future.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 61–8.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 2005. Power: A Radical View. Second edition. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Marin, Alexandra, and Wellman, Barry. 2011. “Social Network Analysis: An Introduction.” In The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, ed. Scott, John and Carrington, Peter J., 11–25. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott, and Lazer, David. 2014. “Political Networks.” Social Networks 36: 1–4.Google Scholar
McClurg, Scott, and Young, Joseph. 2011. “Editors’ Introduction: Relational Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 39–43.Google Scholar
Mische, Ann. 2011. “Relational Sociology, Culture, and Agency.” In The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, ed. Scott, John and Carrington, Peter J., 80–97. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Morriss, Peter. 2002. Power: A Philosophical Analysis. Second edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Perliger, Arie, and Pedahzur, Ami. 2011. “Social Network Analysis in the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 45–50.Google Scholar
Siegel, David. 2011. “Social Networks in Comparative Perspective.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 51–4.Google Scholar
Sokhey, Anand, and Djupe, Paul. 2011. “Interpersonal Networks and Democratic Politics.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (1): 55–9.Google Scholar