Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory

Lars Bo Kaspersen, Norman Gabriel

    Research output: Working paperResearch

    1 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Relational social theory can be found in the works of Hegel, Marx, Simmel, Mannheim, Mead, Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault and Bourdieu. However, one of the most consistent relational thinkers is Norbert Elias. In order to develop his figurational and relational social theory Elias makes two claims: 1) the only theoretically sustainable point of departure for a social theory is to study human beings, human society (and maybe also other animals but we leave this aside for the moment!) in a relational perspective! This claim is justified by a number of arguments among others his critique of methodological individualism, methodological holism, individual-society categories and the homo clauses perspective. 2) The other important assumption that Elias makes concerns the smallest social unit - a survival unit. In other words, the first social relation to be studied is not the single individual or a man-woman relation (family) or man-nature (subject-object). The first unit of analysis is the double relational binding of human beings in social groups. In the first order we find the relation between survival units (`state'-`state'). In a second order we find relations between families and individuals within each of the survival units. We accept these two claims and we intend to contribute to a further substantiation of these two claims. Moreover, we shall raise a particular problem which is not sufficiently addressed in Elias's work or in the critical literature on Elias. In particular we shall explore the problem of survival units. Elias assumes that human societies from very early on were divided into survival units (it is plausible that this can be traced back to approx. 4 million years ago when Australopithecus afarensis and upright walking began to spread). These survival units have been demarcated; in other words, they have demarcated themselves towards other units, and units from outside have generated a demarcation. The questions we need to address concern the problem of demarcation: a) Why are these survival units demarcated towards each other? Why has this been the case for at least 4 million years? b) Why has the world not at any point been one survival unit? Is it a plausible future development? Can the world turn into one state/survival unit? We shall argue that although Elias has given an explanation for this demarcation, he has overlooked another mechanism sustaining the separation between units. Furthermore, by incorporating Hegel and Clausewitz into Elias's relational theory we shall demonstrate that an answer to these two questions is possible.
    Original languageEnglish
    Place of PublicationKøbenhavn
    PublisherDepartment of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School
    Number of pages30
    ISBN (Print)8791690129
    Publication statusPublished - 2005

    Cite this

    Kaspersen, L. B., & Gabriel, N. (2005). Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory. København: Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School.
    Kaspersen, Lars Bo ; Gabriel, Norman. / Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory. København : Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School, 2005.
    @techreport{e4343fc0dd3b11db84f6000ea68e967b,
    title = "Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory",
    abstract = "Relational social theory can be found in the works of Hegel, Marx, Simmel, Mannheim, Mead, Saussure, L{\'e}vi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault and Bourdieu. However, one of the most consistent relational thinkers is Norbert Elias. In order to develop his figurational and relational social theory Elias makes two claims: 1) the only theoretically sustainable point of departure for a social theory is to study human beings, human society (and maybe also other animals but we leave this aside for the moment!) in a relational perspective! This claim is justified by a number of arguments among others his critique of methodological individualism, methodological holism, individual-society categories and the homo clauses perspective. 2) The other important assumption that Elias makes concerns the smallest social unit - a survival unit. In other words, the first social relation to be studied is not the single individual or a man-woman relation (family) or man-nature (subject-object). The first unit of analysis is the double relational binding of human beings in social groups. In the first order we find the relation between survival units (`state'-`state'). In a second order we find relations between families and individuals within each of the survival units. We accept these two claims and we intend to contribute to a further substantiation of these two claims. Moreover, we shall raise a particular problem which is not sufficiently addressed in Elias's work or in the critical literature on Elias. In particular we shall explore the problem of survival units. Elias assumes that human societies from very early on were divided into survival units (it is plausible that this can be traced back to approx. 4 million years ago when Australopithecus afarensis and upright walking began to spread). These survival units have been demarcated; in other words, they have demarcated themselves towards other units, and units from outside have generated a demarcation. The questions we need to address concern the problem of demarcation: a) Why are these survival units demarcated towards each other? Why has this been the case for at least 4 million years? b) Why has the world not at any point been one survival unit? Is it a plausible future development? Can the world turn into one state/survival unit? We shall argue that although Elias has given an explanation for this demarcation, he has overlooked another mechanism sustaining the separation between units. Furthermore, by incorporating Hegel and Clausewitz into Elias's relational theory we shall demonstrate that an answer to these two questions is possible.",
    keywords = "Samfundsvidenskabelig teori, Samfundsfilosofi",
    author = "Kaspersen, {Lars Bo} and Norman Gabriel",
    year = "2005",
    language = "English",
    isbn = "8791690129",
    publisher = "Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School",
    type = "WorkingPaper",
    institution = "Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School",

    }

    Kaspersen, LB & Gabriel, N 2005 'Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory' Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School, København.

    Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory. / Kaspersen, Lars Bo; Gabriel, Norman.

    København : Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School, 2005.

    Research output: Working paperResearch

    TY - UNPB

    T1 - Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory

    AU - Kaspersen, Lars Bo

    AU - Gabriel, Norman

    PY - 2005

    Y1 - 2005

    N2 - Relational social theory can be found in the works of Hegel, Marx, Simmel, Mannheim, Mead, Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault and Bourdieu. However, one of the most consistent relational thinkers is Norbert Elias. In order to develop his figurational and relational social theory Elias makes two claims: 1) the only theoretically sustainable point of departure for a social theory is to study human beings, human society (and maybe also other animals but we leave this aside for the moment!) in a relational perspective! This claim is justified by a number of arguments among others his critique of methodological individualism, methodological holism, individual-society categories and the homo clauses perspective. 2) The other important assumption that Elias makes concerns the smallest social unit - a survival unit. In other words, the first social relation to be studied is not the single individual or a man-woman relation (family) or man-nature (subject-object). The first unit of analysis is the double relational binding of human beings in social groups. In the first order we find the relation between survival units (`state'-`state'). In a second order we find relations between families and individuals within each of the survival units. We accept these two claims and we intend to contribute to a further substantiation of these two claims. Moreover, we shall raise a particular problem which is not sufficiently addressed in Elias's work or in the critical literature on Elias. In particular we shall explore the problem of survival units. Elias assumes that human societies from very early on were divided into survival units (it is plausible that this can be traced back to approx. 4 million years ago when Australopithecus afarensis and upright walking began to spread). These survival units have been demarcated; in other words, they have demarcated themselves towards other units, and units from outside have generated a demarcation. The questions we need to address concern the problem of demarcation: a) Why are these survival units demarcated towards each other? Why has this been the case for at least 4 million years? b) Why has the world not at any point been one survival unit? Is it a plausible future development? Can the world turn into one state/survival unit? We shall argue that although Elias has given an explanation for this demarcation, he has overlooked another mechanism sustaining the separation between units. Furthermore, by incorporating Hegel and Clausewitz into Elias's relational theory we shall demonstrate that an answer to these two questions is possible.

    AB - Relational social theory can be found in the works of Hegel, Marx, Simmel, Mannheim, Mead, Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault and Bourdieu. However, one of the most consistent relational thinkers is Norbert Elias. In order to develop his figurational and relational social theory Elias makes two claims: 1) the only theoretically sustainable point of departure for a social theory is to study human beings, human society (and maybe also other animals but we leave this aside for the moment!) in a relational perspective! This claim is justified by a number of arguments among others his critique of methodological individualism, methodological holism, individual-society categories and the homo clauses perspective. 2) The other important assumption that Elias makes concerns the smallest social unit - a survival unit. In other words, the first social relation to be studied is not the single individual or a man-woman relation (family) or man-nature (subject-object). The first unit of analysis is the double relational binding of human beings in social groups. In the first order we find the relation between survival units (`state'-`state'). In a second order we find relations between families and individuals within each of the survival units. We accept these two claims and we intend to contribute to a further substantiation of these two claims. Moreover, we shall raise a particular problem which is not sufficiently addressed in Elias's work or in the critical literature on Elias. In particular we shall explore the problem of survival units. Elias assumes that human societies from very early on were divided into survival units (it is plausible that this can be traced back to approx. 4 million years ago when Australopithecus afarensis and upright walking began to spread). These survival units have been demarcated; in other words, they have demarcated themselves towards other units, and units from outside have generated a demarcation. The questions we need to address concern the problem of demarcation: a) Why are these survival units demarcated towards each other? Why has this been the case for at least 4 million years? b) Why has the world not at any point been one survival unit? Is it a plausible future development? Can the world turn into one state/survival unit? We shall argue that although Elias has given an explanation for this demarcation, he has overlooked another mechanism sustaining the separation between units. Furthermore, by incorporating Hegel and Clausewitz into Elias's relational theory we shall demonstrate that an answer to these two questions is possible.

    KW - Samfundsvidenskabelig teori

    KW - Samfundsfilosofi

    M3 - Working paper

    SN - 8791690129

    BT - Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory

    PB - Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School

    CY - København

    ER -

    Kaspersen LB, Gabriel N. Survival units as the point of departure for a relational social theory. København: Department of Business and Politics. Copenhagen Business School. 2005.