Browsing by Author "Emirbayer, M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Manifesto for a relational sociology
    Emirbayer, M. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997)
    In this article, Emirbayer launches a scathing assault on the new "substantialist" and overly quantitative approach to modern sociology. Specifically, Emirbayer discredits variable centered and rational choice models for attempting to deify social relations rather than to fully appreciate the rich context of time and space in the agency of actors within a social network. Arguing that sociology has moved away from its basic premise that human relations are dynamic in that actors significantly reform one another through their relations, Emirbayer advocates for language of "transaction" instead of "interaction" to restore culture and context to the science of sociology.
  • Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency
    Emirbayer, M.; Goodwin, J. (1994)
    This paper reflects on the importance of network analysis in sociological research, even though it has never been subjected to a theoretically informed assessment and critique. Network analysis does not have a formal theory; it uses instead strategies to understand social structures. The authors present a summary of the theoretical assumptions of network analysis. The paper also defines three (implicit) models in the network literature of interrelation of social structure, culture, and human agency. The first, structuralist determinism, neglects the political and cultural discourse in history and the potential causal role of actors' beliefs, values, and normative commitments. The second one, the structuralist instrumentalism, accepts the prominent role of social actors in history, but conceptualizes their activity in narrowly and instrumental forms. Finally, the structuralist constructionism, thematizes certain historical processes of identity conversion and "robust action." It adequately conceptualizes human agency and the potentially transformative impact of cultural idioms and normative commitments on social action. To conclude, the paper calls for an historical explanation that synthesizes social structural and cultural analysis to adequately explain the formation, reproduction, and transformation of networks themselves. The authors end the paper proposing an outline for a theoretical synthesis.