Micro‐interaction dynamics of affective sanctioning have been widely acknowledged but rarely related to the emergence of social phenomena. This paper aims to highlight the constitutive force of interaction activity by critically analysing two sociological models, Bourdieu's theory of practice and Barnes's Performative Theory of Social Institutions (PTSI). Such a comparison allows me to reveal two differing models of social phenomena currently operating in sociological debates: an extrinsic structuralist model which tacitly conveys macro‐structural phenomena as prior and determinant of individuals and their micro‐interactions, and an intrinsic structuralism model which prioritizes individuals’ interactions and conceives them as constituting both the individual and the structural. I argue that the latter's emphasis on the dynamics of mutual susceptibility to affective sanctioning as underpinning consensus among inherently heterogeneous individuals provides a platform to further support the tenets of Interactionism and helps to expose Bourdieu's over‐deterministic methodological individualism prevalent in most sociological theory. I conclude that by conceiving emotions as causal, rather than the effect of social forces, sociological theory can provide an explanation of both individual practices and systemic phenomena which resolves macro‐structural tensions. In doing so, I suggest an ontological understanding of the “social” which supports the Interactionist central tenet that the local takes priority over wider structural phenomena.

Caste is often presented as a stable or fixed form of social stratification that conditions the behaviour of its members.This occludes the micro-structural process by which caste is embodied.This article uses empirical work on caste protest to discuss the fluid nature of embodied activity, and the analytical utility of two social constructionist accounts: the tacitly pre-given structures of Bourdieu's model are compared to the continuous creation model of Foucault.Whereas the internalized structures of Bourdieu's habitus initially appear to make most sense of the embodiment and permanence of caste, we contend that a Foucauldian approach offers better insight into the interactional basis of social structures and identity formation.The article reconsiders both theories in light of these empirical data and concludes that analysing interaction at a local level enables us to better comprehend the emergence of social structural features in a caste context.

Conventional analyses of domination ultimately conceive of individuals internalizing aspects of their contextual social environments (desires or norms) which determine their future behaviour in a pre-conscious fashion. We suggest that this conception of domination is mistaken and stems from a commitment to theoretical models which view individuals' actions as the result rather than a cause, of durable social structures. We offer a critical analysis of Lukes and Bourdieu as paradigmatic theorists of power who hold such a view, and contrast their work to that of Barnes and Foucault. Drawing on the latter we develop an intrinsic model of power which views interaction as central to social phenomena and understands social processes as arising from the continuous interaction of heterogeneous and calculative but mutually susceptible individuals.This approach re-conceptualises three central dichotomies in studies of power: consensus versus conflict, agency versus compliance and mind versus embodiment. We argue, contrary to extrinsic views of power, that calculative agency is essential to both compliance and consensus and view both domination and resistance as integral to power dynamics. Contrary to theories of false consciousness we understand bodies, rather than minds, as central to the routinization of power dynamics. Whilst the paper primarily develops theoretical debates on power we briefly illustrate our position by reference to empirical data on untouchables in India.

No abstract

Micro-interaction dynamics of affective sanctioning have received insufficient attention when exploring the emergence of masculine identities and practices among gang members. Our aim is to provide an analytical approach that places affective sanctioning at the heart of explanations of local masculine subjectivities. We demonstrate affective sanctioning as a key method through which gang members facilitate successful face-to-face interaction via the constitution of shared group status markers as collective 'goods'. Using empirical data contrasting two types of Glasgow gang groups, we show that, albeit sharing contexts in which similar structural determinants operate, each embodies idiosyncratic modes of masculine identity, characterised by distinct hyper-masculine traits, which in turn constitute the group's boundaries. Our primary focus is on the dynamics that maintain the group, rather than those that create it, and hence on how group markers emerge and are maintained by the constitutive force of individuals' mutual susceptibility to affective inter-valuation practices. Here the acts of recognition and honouring, and dishonouring are the most socially significant affective sanctioning mechanisms. Our methodological investigation rests on an 'intrinsic' structuralist approach which prioritises micro-situational data over wider structural arrangements. We contrast this with 'extrinsic' models which dominate current gang scholarship and which tacitly view individuals as socialised 'from the outside'. Our methodology and findings have profound implications for practitioners who must start from a recognition that individuals operate within the constraints of their emotionally bound group.