The Field-Interactional Approach to Community

  • Kenneth C. Bessant
Chapter

Abstract

The field-interactional approach evolved in the late twentieth century as an alternative to social system thinking about community. The study of field dynamics is not confined to the interactional perspective, and, so, this chapter explores varied interpretations of the “field” concept. Early proponents of the interactional field approach recognized the need to re-theorize community in light of wide-scale societal transformation and turbulence. Social field theory draws attention to the multifarious interaction processes at play within communities and the potential for purposive collective action. The field-interactional perspective is essentially a “bottom-up” community development approach that is premised on emergent relational processes of interest convergence and collective agency. Quite literally, communities “act” in and through field-based interactions and relations that become organized around mutual interests.

References

  1. Aigner, S. M., Raymond, V. J., & Smidt, L. J. (2002). “Whole community organizing” for the 21st century. Community Development, 33, 86–106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330209490144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, J. C. (2001). Community conflict resolution: The development of social capital within an interactional field. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 119–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00089-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Athens, L. (2005). Mead’s lost conception of society. Symbolic Interaction, 28, 305–325.  https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2005.28.3.305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, T. (1978). Community and social change in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bessant, K. C. (2011). Authenticity, community, and modernity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41, 2–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00443.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bessant, K. C. (2012). The interactional community: Emergent fields of collective agency. Sociological Inquiry, 82, 628–645.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2012.00424.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bessant, K. C. (2014). An interactional approach to emergent interorganizational fields. Community Development, 45, 60–75.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2013.852594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bianchin, M. (2003). Reciprocity, individuals and community: Remarks on phenomenology, social theory and politics. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 29, 631–654.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453703296003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blumer, H. (2004). George Herbert Mead and human conduct (T. J. Morrione, Ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. (Original work published 1979).Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1985a). The genesis of the concepts of habitus and of field. Sociocriticism, 2, 11–24.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1985b). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/657373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1980).Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bridger, J. C., & Alter, T. R. (2006). Place, community development, and social capital. Community Development, 37, 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330609490151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bridger, J. C., & Luloff, A. E. (2001). Building the sustainable community: Is social capital the answer? Sociological Inquiry, 71, 458–472.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2001.tb01127.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buckley, R. P. (1992). Husserl’s notion of authentic community. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, LXVI, 213–227.  https://doi.org/10.5840/acpq199266238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buckley, R. P. (1996). Husserl’s rational “Liebesgemeinschaft”. Research in Phenomenology, 26, 116–129.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156916496X00067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), s95–s120. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Nooy, W. (2003). Fields and networks: Correspondence analysis and social network analysis in the framework of field theory. Poetics: Journal of Empirical Research on Culture, the Media and the Arts, 31, 305–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422x(03)00035-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dépelteau, F. (2015). Relational sociology, pragmatism, transactions and social fields. International Review of Sociology, 25, 45–64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.997966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DiMaggio, P. (1986). Structural analysis of organizational fields: A blockmodel approach. In B. W. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 335–370). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donati, P. (2015). Manifesto for a critical realist relational sociology. International Review of Sociology, 25, 86–109.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.997967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19, 105–125.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29, 1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hart, J. G. (1992a). The entelechy and authenticity of objective spirit: Reflections on Husserliana XXVII. Husserl Studies, 9, 91–110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00366749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hart, J. G. (1992b). The person and the common life: Studies in a Husserlian social ethics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hart, J. G. (1992c). The rationality of culture and the culture of rationality: Some Husserlian proposals. Philosophy East and West, 42, 643–664. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. (Original work published 1954).Google Scholar
  33. Husserl, E. (1999). Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology (D. Cairns, Trans.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (Original work published 1950).Google Scholar
  34. Jones, S. B. (1954). A unified field theory of political geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers Association, 44, 111–123.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045605409352128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaufman, H. F. (1959). Toward an interactional conception of community. Social Forces, 38, 8–17.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2574010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaufman, H. F. (1985). An action approach to community development. In F. A. Fear & H. K. Schwarzeller (Eds.), Research in rural sociology and development. Focus on community (Vol. 2, pp. 53–65). London, UK: JAI Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Korsching, P. F., & Allen, J. C. (2004). Local entrepreneurship: A development model based on community interaction field theory. Community Development, 35, 25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330409490120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levitt, P., & Glick Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. International Migration Review, 38, 1002–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00227.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Machado-da-Silva, C. L., Guarido Filho, E. R., & Rossini, L. (2006). Organizational fields and the structuration perspective: Analytical possibilities. Brazilian Administrative Review, 3, 32–56. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bar/v3n2/v3n2a04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1–49.  https://doi.org/10.1086/375201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mattson, G. A. (1997). Redefining the American small town: Community governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 13, 121–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(96)00039-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McMullin, E. (2002). The origins of the field concept in physics. Physics in Perspective, 4, 13–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-002-8357-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present (A. E. Murphy, Ed.). Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  46. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W. Morris, Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Mead, G. H. (1938). The philosophy of the act (C. W. Morris, Ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Medvetz, T. M. (2008). Think tanks as an emergent field. New York, NY: Social Science Research Council. Retrieved from https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/A2A2BA10-B135-DE11-AFAC-001CC477EC70/ Google Scholar
  49. Miller, B. (1992). Collective action and rational choice: Place, community, and the limits to individual self-interest. Economic Geography, 68, 22–42. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/144039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2008). Networks and institutions. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 596–623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pavey, J. L., Muth, A. B., Ostermeier, D., & Davis, M. L. E. S. (2007). Building capacity for local governance: An application of interactional theory to developing a community of interest. Rural Sociology, 72, 90–110.  https://doi.org/10.1526/003601107781147419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pigg, K. E. (1999). Community leadership and community theory: A practical synthesis. Community Development, 30, 196–212.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575339909489721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1132–1205.  https://doi.org/10.1086/421508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13, 35–42. Retrieved from http://prospect.org/article/prosperous-community-social-capital-and-public-life Google Scholar
  55. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and renewal of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scott, W. R. (1994). Institutions and organizations: Toward a theoretical synthesis. In W. R. Scott, J. W. Meyer, & Associates (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism (pp. 55–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  58. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  59. Sharp, J. S., Flora, J. L., & Killacky, J. (2003). Networks and fields: Corporate business leader involvement in voluntary organizations of a large nonmetropolitan city. Community Development, 34, 36–56.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330309490102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stanzani, S. (2015). Dimensions of social capital and subjective well-being: Evidence from Italy. International Review of Sociology, 25, 129–143.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.977586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Theodori, G. L. (2004). Community attachment, satisfaction, and action. Community Development, 35, 73–86.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330409490133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Theodori, G. L. (2008). Constraints to the development of community. Community Development, 39, 63–81.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330809489742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Theodori, G. L., Luloff, A. E., Brennan, M. A., & Bridger, J. C. (2016). Making sense of “making sense”: A critical response. Rural Sociology, 81, 35–45.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Throop, C. J., & Murphy, K. M. (2002). Bourdieu and phenomenology: A critical assessment. Anthropological Theory, 2, 185–207.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469962002002002630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tönnies, F. (1957). Community and society: Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft (C. P. Loomis, Ed. and Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers. (Original work published 1887).Google Scholar
  66. Warren, R. L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 396–419. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. White, D. R., Owen-Smith, J., Moody, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Networks, fields and organizations: Micro-dynamics, scale and cohesive embeddings. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 10, 95–117.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CMOT.0000032581.34436.7b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilkinson, K. P. (1970). The community as a social field. Social Forces, 48, 311–322.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2574650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wilkinson, K. P. (1972). A field-theory perspective for community development research. Rural Sociology, 37, 43–52.Google Scholar
  70. Wilkinson, K. P. (1986). In search of the community in the changing countryside. Rural Sociology, 51, 1–17.Google Scholar
  71. Wilkinson, K. P. (1991). The community in rural America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  72. Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 130–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth C. Bessant
    • 1
  1. 1.Brandon UniversityBrandonCanada

Personalised recommendations