Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to explore one particular way in which the current social dynamics may be developing into a ‘morphogenic society’. Its main concern is to outline some substantive features such an emerging societal formation could exhibit. The notion of social mechanism is central to this enterprise. The main thesis is that the conjuncture among various mechanisms is generating different niches or ‘environments’ within global society, which are possibly characterized by mutually opposed features. More precisely, the thesis is that the force of intensified morphogenesis is shaping organizations and big institutional complexes into social forms that could be described as ‘enclaves’ and ‘vortexes’, which emerge when social complexity tends to exceed the adaptive capacity of human individuals, groups or collectivities. A map of emergent social facts and entities is presented, clarifying the way in which their interrelations, under particular structural and cultural conditions, act as higher-order mechanisms giving rise to social forms that may be usefully characterized as enclaves or vortexes. The chapter goes on to illustrate some of the structural and cultural emergent properties of such environments, and the ways in which they may influence the quality of social life in the emerging morphogenic society. Among these, the negative consequences for cooperation and social integration are highlighted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I will use the word ‘morphogenetic’ to refer to the intrinsic tendency of all human societies to generate and change (social) forms, while I call ‘morphogenic’ the specific societal syndrome characterized by the situational logic of opportunity, stemming from ‘unbound morphogenesis’ (signifying one unfettered from morphostasis) and leading to a wholly novel societal formation.
- 2.
These concepts are taken from the conceptual toolbox of the morphogenetic/morphostatic approach (M/M) first spelled out by Archer (1995).
- 3.
For the concept of unbound morphogenesis see Archer (2013).
- 4.
- 5.
The kind of environment I term a ‘seed-bed’ will only be hinted at here.
- 6.
I do not review all the relevant nuances in the literature on mechanisms. For a discussion of the main epistemological issues concerning the ‘mechanistic’ view see Bunge (2004); the same journal issue includes important essays on the same topic by Renate Mayntz and Colin Wight. See also Hsiang-Ke et al. (2013), Craver (2007), and Machamer et al. (2000). The work of Roy Bhaskar is obviously relevant as the original critical realist position on this theme. For a useful summary see Hartwig (2007: 57–62).
- 7.
My discussion here draws mainly on the following sources: Hedström and Swedberg (1998), Hedström and Ylikoski (2010), and Demeulenaere (2011). For a critical view of the ‘analytical’ take on mechanisms see: Abbott (2007) and Norkus (2005). A theory of social mechanisms within historical sociology is laid out by Gorski (2009). For a pragmatist view cf. Gross (2009).
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Cf. Darden (2006: 281).
- 11.
- 12.
For a refined treatment of this issue, which cannot be followed up here, see Abbott (2001).
- 13.
- 14.
See Donati, (Chap. 4) in this volume, for a relational theory of social mechanisms.
- 15.
Contra, Demeulenaere (2011: 19).
- 16.
See, however, Ylikoski (2011), according to whom such a claim would only apply to what he calls ‘A-mechanisms’, namely regular processes, and not to ‘B-mechanisms’, i.e., to more abstract causal schemes.
- 17.
Hedström and Ylikoski (2010: 59).
- 18.
Friedman (2006).
- 19.
This approach is consistent with Archer’s claim that “Social Realism always respects the fact that such potentials may remain unrealized because of (a) countervailing mechanisms at work and also (b) unforeseen contingencies that cannot be excluded from the open system of society” (see Archer’s contribution, Chaps. 1 and 7 to this volume).
- 20.
To put it bluntly, although expert systems may well work synchronically and predictably when checking flights or e-finance operations, this does not mean that social morphogenesis will also display such a smooth and standardized process. More commonly, globalized systems are often ‘out of sync’.
- 21.
This statement is meant to include downward causation.
- 22.
This point needs clarification as regards the concept of social mechanism, and the notion of mechanism-related levels of (social) reality. See Sect. 8.3.
- 23.
My use of the term ‘conjuncture’ is similar to its common usage in critical realism. See Bhaskar (1998, 2008)3 and Hartwig (2007: 76). With reference to the latter, I take the meaning of conjuncture to be a combination of events and circumstances that is critical or betokens a crisis, with some abstraction and generalization, namely as a set of mechanisms that are critical to generate particular social outcomes. See also: Douglas V. Porpora, Chap. 9 in this volume, p. 172; Steinmetz (1998).
- 24.
- 25.
Cf. Maccarini (2013a).
- 26.
It remains a matter for future speculation whether or not there are inherent ‘limits’ to morphogenesis, after which collapses or catastrophes become necessary to rebuild capacity and to start a new morphogenetic cycle – e.g., a new civilization. The ‘society without an outside’ is precisely a society that has lost a quite specific (kind of) asset, namely the ‘space’ in which to expand and grow – the material social morphogenesis can burn, or the place where it can develop. But on this point metaphors still have to give way to sound conceptualization.
- 27.
For example, the 10th conference of the European Sociological Association, ‘Social relations in turbulent times’, Geneva, September, 2011, which prompted a bunch of papers that took up such a metaphor in their titles.
- 28.
For an interesting literature review on this topic cf. Baburoglu (1988).
- 29.
- 30.
Archer’s morphogenetic account of the synergy between market competition and the cooperative logic of diffusion, in this volume, may well serve as a clarification of this point.
- 31.
For an illustration of the theoretical underpinning of this figure I must refer to Maccarini (2013b, 2014). The figure presented here is a new and amended formulation. Some word choice and a few substantive details differ from the former scheme. I note that my treatment of the category of ‘emergent events’, that was added in this new version, is reminiscent of the work by Sewell (1990). From an epistemological point of view, the scheme in question is ‘analogical-topological formalism’ in kind, with claims of similarities and principles of variation. For these notions see Tilly (2004a): 5.
- 32.
The literature on such a vast array of phenomena covers various disciplines, and clearly exceeds any reasonable limit. I will only quote a few works, which played a crucial role in the development of my own perspective on the topics in question. For HETs and social acceleration, see again Maccarini (2014). On the concept of boundary change cf. Tilly (2004b). On smart governance see Willke (2007). On experimentalist organization, cf. Sabel (2006), Sabel and Zeitlin (2010). About new forms of social exclusion see Woodward and Kohli (2001). The phenomenon of new land enclosures is well documented in The World Bank (2010), http://www.landcoalition.org/cpl/CPL-synthesis-report. For case studies see http://www.lancoalition.org/cplstudies, http://www.future-agricultures.org/index.php?option=comdocman&Itemid=971, http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/publications, Anseeuw et al. (2012). About the mechanisms that tend to produce the QISM and the links between family organization and macro-social change see Axinn and Yabiku (2001). The de-generating tendencies of some Western institutions are studied by Ferguson (2011). An application to Italy may be drawn from Censis (2013). On the notion of ‘governance by standards’ see Thévenot (1997), Busch (2010). The connected themes of new legal frameworks, processes of constitutionalisation, and post-democracy evoke the work of such authors as Gunther Teubner, Hauke Brunkhorst, and many more. For human rights cf. Goodman and Jinks (2013b). The concept of social subjectivities is treated by Prandini (2013).
- 33.
For example, throughout the chapter cited in note 31 (Maccarini 2014) I explored the conjuncture between human enhancement techniques and social acceleration. To that essay I refer for bibliographic references on these topics.
- 34.
“The rate and extent of enclave formation depends on: (a) the abilities of members to differentiate among their functional and dysfunctional relations; (b) the speed at which they can break off undesired relations by becoming self-sufficient or minimally dependent on others with needed capacity; and (c) their ability to create and enforce boundaries” (McCann and Selsky 1984: 466).
- 35.
Ibid.
- 36.
- 37.
Though not exclusively. The same rationale seems to apply to political stability, institutional efficiency, and the respect of human rights as well as of a growing set of rules and procedures on the part of members – concerning issues as different as immigration, food safety, patent rights, criminal justice, waste processing, etc.
- 38.
Australia vs. Indonesia and Pakistan vs. India are only two of the most evident examples. In the cultural domain, the diffusion of values is suffering serious setbacks, while rapidly growing non-Western countries like Russia, India, and China become increasingly vocal in asserting their difference on many issues connecting deep identity dimensions with concrete policy choices. The definition of the ‘family’ is a blatant example, although others may be adduced.
References
Abbott, A. (2001). Time matters. On theory and method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, A. (2007). Mechanisms and relations. Sociologica, 2, 1–22. doi:10.2383/24750.
Accetturo, A., Giunta, A., & Rossi, S. (2011). Le imprese italiane tra crisi e nuova globalizzazione. Questioni di economia e finanza (occasional papers). Banca d’Italia, 86, 1–28.
Anseeuw, W., Wily, L. A., Cotula, L., & Taylor, M. (2012). Land rights and the rush for land: Findings of the global commercial pressures on land research project. Rome: ILC.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory. The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2013). Social morphogenesis. New York: Springer.
Atkinson, R., & Blandy, S. (Eds.). (2006). Gated communities. London: Routledge.
Axinn, W. G., & Yabiku, S. T. (2001). Social change, the social organization of families, and fertility limitation. American Journal of Sociology, 106(5), 1219–1261.
Baburoglu, O. N. (1988). The vortical environment: The fifth in the emery-trist levels of organizational environments. Human Relations, 41(3), 181–210.
Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. London: Verso.
Bunge, M. (2004). How does it work? The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(1), 182–210.
Busch, L. (2010). Standards, law, and governance. Journal of Rural Social Science, 25(3), 56–78.
Censis. (2013). Quarantasettesimo Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del Paese. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain. Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darden, L. (2006). Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Demeulenaere, P. (Ed.). (2011). Analytical sociology and social mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, F. (2011). Civilization. The west and the rest. New York: Penguin Books.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat. A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2013a). Socializing states: Promoting human rights through international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2013b). Social mechanisms to promote international human rights: Complementary or contradictory? In T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The persistent power of human rights. From commitment to compliance (pp. 103–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gorski, P. (2009). Social “mechanisms” and comparative-historical sociology: A critical realist proposal. In P. Hedström & B. Wittrock (Eds.), Frontiers of sociology (pp. 147–196). Leiden: Brill.
Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 358–379.
Guzzini, S. (Ed.). (2012). The return of geopolitics in Europe? Social mechanisms and foreign policy identity crises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hartwig, M. (Ed.). (2007). Dictionary of critical realism. London: Routledge.
Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (1998). Social mechanisms. An analytic approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hedström, P., & Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 49–67.
Hsiang-Ke, C., Szu-Ting, C., & Millstein, R. L. (Eds.). (2013). Mechanism and causality in biology and economics. New York: Springer.
Kolins Givan, R., Roberts, K. M., & Soule, S. A. (Eds.). (2010). The diffusion of social movements: Actors, mechanisms, and political effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maccarini, A. (2013a). The morphogenetic approach and the idea of a morphogenetic society: The role of regularities. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 39–60). New York: Springer.
Maccarini, A. (2013b). A morphogenetic-relational account of social emergence: Processes and forms. In M. S. Archer & A. Maccarini (Eds.), Engaging with the world. Agency, institutions, historical formations (pp. 22–49). London: Routledge.
Maccarini, A. M. (2014). The emergent social qualities of a ‘morphogenic’ society. Structures, cultures, and forms of reflexivity. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity. Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 49–76). New York: Springer.
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.
McCann, J. E., & Selsky, J. W. (1984). Hyperturbulence and the emergence of type 5 environments. The Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 460–470.
McCann, J. E., & Selsky, J. W. (2012). Mastering turbulence: The essential capabilities of agile and resilient individuals, teams and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., & Kennedy, L. W. (Eds.). (2011). When crime appears. The role of emergence. London: Routledge.
Morgan, J. (2007). Emergence. In M. Hartwig (Ed.), Dictionary of critical realism (pp. 166–167). London: Routledge.
Norkus, N. (2005). Mechanisms as miracle makers? The rise and Inconsistencies of the ‘mechanismic’ approach in social science and history. History and Theory, 44, 348–372.
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Prandini, R. (2013). Reflexive social subjectivities. In M. S. Archer & A. Maccarini (Eds.), Engaging with the world. Agency, institutions, historical formations (pp. 50–77). London: Routledge.
Sabel, C. F. (2006). Learning by monitoring. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (Eds.). (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union. Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sewell, W. H. (1990). Three temporalities: Toward a sociology of the event (CSST Working Paper). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Steinmetz, G. (1998). Critical realism and historical sociology: A review article. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 40, 170–186.
The World Bank. (2010). Rising global interest in Farmland. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Thévenot, L. (1997). Un Gouvernement Par Les Normes: Pratiques et politiques des formats d’information. In B. Conein & L. Thévenot (Eds.), Cognition et information en société (pp. 205–224). Paris: Éditions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Thorntorn, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilly, C. (1997). Means and ends of comparison in macrosociology. Comparative Social Research, 16, 43–53.
Tilly, C. (2001). Historical analysis of political processes. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 567–588). New York: Kluwer.
Tilly, C. (2004a). Observations of social processes and their formal representations. Sociological Theory, 22(4), 5.
Tilly, C. (2004b). Social boundary mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 211–236.
Tilly, C. (2006). Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. London: Sage.
Tilly, C. (2008). Explaining social processes. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance. Governing the global knowledge society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Woodward, A., & Kohli, M. (Eds.). (2001). Inclusions and exclusions in European societies. London: Routledge.
Ylikoski, P. (2011). Social mechanisms and explanatory relevance. In P. Demeulenaere (Ed.), Analytical sociology and social mechanisms (pp. 154–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maccarini, A.M. (2015). Turbulence and Relational Conjunctures: The Emergence of Morphogenic Environments. In: Archer, M. (eds) Generative Mechanisms Transforming the Social Order. Social Morphogenesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13773-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13773-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13772-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13773-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)