A Meta-Theoretical Introduction to Reconceptualizing Structure in the Relational Sociology of Childhood

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 440 - 457, 28.03.2023

Fazilet Dalfidan

Öz

The relational sociology of childhood often has a structural character. This is related to regarding structures as having a causal power that exists analytically apart from agency, ontologically prior to agency. In this context, this article problematizes the understanding of structure in relational childhood sociology. Based on the concept of structure in hybrid-relational childhood ontology, this article argues which features of Elias and Dépelteau's relational ontologies can be included in the relational ontology of childhood in order to strengthen the understanding of structure positioned in interdependence relations. The aim of the article is to make a theoretical contribution to the reconceptualization of structure in relational analysis of childhood by drawing attention to the need for an interactional-relational childhood ontology as an alternative to the structural-relational perspective. Looking at children's agency from an interactional-relational perspective will further reveal their potential to disrupt the taken for granted conceptualizations and sense-making of children's social worlds.

Anahtar Kelimeler

relational ontology, childhood, agency-structure, figuration, trans-action

Teşekkür

I would like to thank Professor Şeref Uluocak for his critical and supportive contributions and feedbacks.

İlişkisel Çocukluk Sosyolojisinde Yapıyı Yeniden Kavramsallaştırma Üzerine Meta-Teorik Bir Giriş

Öz

İlişkisel çocukluk sosyolojisi çoğunlukla yapısal bir karakter taşımaktadır. Bu yapıları analitik olarak faillikten ayrı, ontolojik olarak faillikten önce var olan nedensel bir güce sahip olarak görmekle ilişkilidir. Bu bağlamda bu makale buyapı kavrayışını sorunsallaştırmaktadır. Hibrit-ilişkisel çocukluk ontolojisindeki yapı kavrayışından hareketle, karşılıklı bağımlılık ilişkilerinde konumlandırılan yapı anlayışını güçlendirmek için bu makale Elias ve Dépelteau’nun ilişkisel ontolojilerindeki yapı kavrayışlarının hangi özellikleriyle çocukluğun ilişkisel ontolojisine dahil edilebileceğini tartışmaktadır. Makalenin amacı, yapısal-ilişkisel perspektife alternatif olarak etkileşimsel-ilişkisel bir çocukluk ontolojisine yönelik ihtiyaca dikkat çekerek, çocukluğun ilişkisel analizinde yapının yeniden kavramsallaştırmasına kuramsal bir katkı sağlamaktır. Çocukların failliğine etkileşimsel-ilişkisel perspektiften bakmak, çocukların sosyal dünyalarındaki kanıksanmış kavramsallaştırmaları ve anlamlandırmaları bozma potansiyellerini daha fazla açığa çıkaracaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ilişkisel ontoloji, çocukluk, faillik-yapı, figürasyon, işlem

Kaynakça

• Alanen, L. (2001a). Explorations in generational analysis. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall (Eds.) Conceptualizing Child-Adult Relations (pp. 11-22). RoutledgeFalmer.
• Alanen, L. (2001b). Childhood as a generational condition: children’s daily lives in a central finland town. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall (Eds.) Conceptualizing Child-Adult Relations (pp. 129-153). RoutledgeFalmer.
• Alanen, L. (2009). Generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Childhood Studies (pp. 159-174). Palgrave Macmillian.
• Alanen, L. (2011). Moving towards a relational sociology of childhood. In R. Braches-Chyrek et al. (Eds.) Kindheiten, Gesellschaften:Interdisciplinärezugänge Sur Kinderheitsforschung (pp. 21-44). Barbara Budrich Verlag.
• Alanen, L. (2014). Childhood and intergenerationality: toward an ıntergenerational perspective on child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, I. Frønes, F. Casas, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.) Handbook of Child Well-Being: Theories, Methods and Policies in Global Perspective (pp. 131-160). Springer Reference.
• Alanen L. (2020). Generational order: troubles with a ‘travelling concept’. Children's Geographies, 18(2), 141-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1630715
• Alderson P. (2016a). The philosophy of critical realism and childhood studies. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610616647640
• Alderson. P. (2016b). The Politics of Childhoods Real and Imagined: Practical Application of Critical Realism and Childhood Studies. Routledge.
• Alderson, P. & Yoshida, T. (2016). Meanings of children’s agency: when and where does agency begin and end?. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.) Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood (, pp. 75-88). Routledge.
• Alderson, P. (2017). Critical realism and research design and analysis in geographies of children and young people. In T. Skelton T, R. Evans, & L. Holt (Eds.) Methodological Approaches-Geographies of Children and Young People Volume 2 (pp. 3-22). Springer.
• Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: the Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
• Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Dalfidan, F. (2019). Examination of the children’s coping strategies with poverty in the context of new childhood sociology: Istanbul case (Publication No. 583951) [Doctoral thesis, İstanbul University].
• Demir, S. (2020). Relationality in sociology and relational sociology (Publication No. 624641) [Master Dissertation, Necmettin Erbakan University].
• Dépelteau, F. (2008). Relational thinking: a critique of co-deterministic theories of structure and agency. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00318.x
• Dépelteau, F. (2013). What is the direction of the “relational turn”?. In C. Powell & F. Dépelteau (Eds.) Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues (pp. 163-186). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Dépelteau, F. (2015). Relational sociology, pragmatism, transactions and social fields. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.997966.
• Dépelteau, F. (2018). From the concept of ‘trans-action’ to a process-relational sociology. In F. Dépelteau (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology (pp. 499-519). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Elder-Vass, D. (2007). For emergence: refining archer’s account of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00325.x.
• Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The Causal Power of Social Structures. Cambridge University Press.
• Elias, N. (1978). What is Sociology?. Columbia University Press.
• Esser, F. (2016). Neither “thick” nor “thin”: reconceptualizing agency and childhood relationally. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz & B. Hungerland (Eds.) Reconceptualizing Agency and Childhood: New Perspectives in Childhood Studies (pp. 48–60). Routledge.
• Esser, F., Baader. M.S., Betz, T. & Hungerland, B. (2016). Reconceptualizing agency and childhood. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz & B. Hungerland (Eds.) Reconceptualizing Agency and Childhood: New Perspectives in Childhood Studies (pp. 1–16). Routledge.
• Honig, M. S. (2009). Method and methodology in childhood research. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro & M. S. Honig (Eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Childhood Studies (pp. 62-77). Palgrave Macmillian.
• Jenks, C. (2001). Zeitgeist research on childhood. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices (pp. 62-76). Palmer Press.
• Larkins, C. (2019). Excursions as corporate agents: A critical realist account of children’s agency. Childhood, 26(4), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568219847266
• Lee, N. (1998). Towards an immature sociology. The Sociological Review, 46(3), 458–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00127
• Lee, N. (2001). Children and Society: Growing Up in an Age of Uncertainty. Open University Press.
• Leonard, M. (2016). The Sociology of Children, Childhood and Generation. Sage.
• King, A. (1999). Against structure: a critique of morphogenetic social theory. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00170
• King, A. (2000). Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: a ‘practical’ critique of the habitus. Sociological Theory, 18(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00109
• King, A. (2007). Why I am not an individualist. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(2), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00334.x
• Mayall, B. (2001a). Introduction. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall (Eds.) Conceptualizing Child-adult Relations (pp.114-128). RoutledgeFalmer.
• Mayall, B. (2001b). Understanding childhoods: a London study. In L. Alanen B. Mayall (Eds.) Conceptualizing Child-adult Relations (pp.114-128). RoutledgeFalmer.
• Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from Children’s Lives. Open University Press.
• Oswell, D. (2013). The Agency of Children: From Family to Global Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
• Oswell, D. (2016). Re-aligning children’s agency and re-socialising children in childhood studies. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz & B. Hungerland (Eds.) Reconceptualizing Agency and Childhood: New Perspectives in Childhood Studies (pp. 19–33). Routledge.
• Porpora, D. (1998). Four concepts of social structure. In M. Archer,, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, A. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.) Critical Realism Essential Readings (pp. 339–355). Routledge.
• Prout, A. (2000). Childhood bodies: Construction, agency and hybridity. In A. Prout (Eds.) The Body, Childhood and Society (pp. 1-18). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Prout, A. (2005). The Future of Childhood towards the Interdisciplinary Study of Children. RoutledgeFalmer.
• Prout, A. (2011). Taking a step away from modernity: Reconsidering the new sociology of childhood. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2011.1.1.4
• Punch, S. (2016). Exploring Children Agency across Majority and Minority World Context. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz & B. Hungerland (Eds.) Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood: New Perspectives in Childhood Studies (pp. 236-251). Routledge.
• Punch, S. (2020). Why have generational orderings been marginalised in the social sciences including childhood studies?. Children’s Geographies, 18(2), 128-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1630716
• Qvortrup, J. (1987). The sociology of childhood. ıntroduction. International Journal of Sociology, 17(3), 3-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.1987.11769932
• Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: An introduction. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta & H. Wintersberger (Eds.) Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics (pp. 1-23). Avebury.
• Raithelhuber, E. (2016). Extending agency: the merit of relational approaches for childhood studies. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, B. Hungerland (Eds.) Reconceptualizing Agency and Childhood: New Perspectives in Childhood Studies (pp 89–101). Routledge.
• Spyrou, S. (2017). Time to decenter childhood?. Childhood, 24(4), 433–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568217725936
• Spyrou, S. (2018). Disclosing Childhoods: Research and Knowledge Production for a Critical Childhood Studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Spyrou, S. (2019). An ontological turn for childhood studies? Children & Society, 33(4), 316-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12292
• Spyrou, S., Rosen, R. & Cook, D. T. (2019). Introduction: reimagining childhood studies. In S. Spyrou, R. Rosen & D. T. Cook (Eds.) Reimagining Childhood Studies (pp. 1-22). Bloomsbury Academic.
• Tsekerish, C. (2013). Norbert Elias on relations: insights and perspectives. In C. Powell & F. Dépelteau (Eds.) Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues (pp. 87-104). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Vandenberghe, F. (2018). The Relation as Magical Operator: Overcoming the Divide Between Relational and Processual Sociology. In F. Depelteau (Eds.) Relational Sociology Handbook (pp. 35-59). Palgrave Public.