Between social spaces

Abstract

Sociologists often imagine society as spaces, yet how social spaces are related remains ambiguous in most theories. In developing his field theory, Bourdieu used extensively the concept of homology to describe the structural similarities across fields, but he had not taken seriously the spaces between fields or how fields are related to each other. Adopting the Simmelian approach of formal sociology, this article outlines six basic social forms by which social spaces are related. It argues that relations between social spaces can be understood along two dimensions: heterogeneity and social distance. In terms of heterogeneity, social spaces can be kindred, symbiotic or oppositional. In terms of social distance, they can be linked, nested or overlapping. These social forms of interspatial relations are constituted by the boundary work of a variety of actors, including guardians, brokers and space travellers. The article provides a general vocabulary for thinking about how social spaces are related and how they interact across boundaries.

World society and field theory: The infiltration of development into humanitarianism

“…The issue of autonomy signifies that fields do not stand in isolation. Whereas relations between fields form a "blind spot" (Liu, 2021) in Bourdieu's theory, a close reading shows that the multiplicity of fields and levels, and the transfer of social knowledge and practice across them (Camic, 2013), are drivers of change. Specifically, their boundaries are prone to change, that is, leakage or expansion of one field into another (Gorski, 2013).…”

“…Addressing this gap, I suggest an approach that draws on two levels. From a meso perspective, the overlooked issue of change and transformation of fields' boundaries (Gorski, 2013;Liu, 2021) serves as one conceptual leg.…”

“…Addressing this gap, I suggest an approach that draws on two levels. From a meso perspective, the overlooked issue of change and transformation of fields' boundaries (Gorski, 2013; Liu, 2021) serves as one conceptual leg. From a macro position, I adapt world society theory (Meyer et al, 1997) to illuminate knowledge institutionalization, which engenders the second part of the argument.…”

Institutional proximity and judicial corruption: A spatial approach

“…Taking a spatial approach to courts and other institutions is to think of them not causally but relationally and ecologically . We follow a long‐standing sociological tradition of conceptualizing institutions as social spaces (Liu & Emirbayer, 2016), that is, to take seriously the spatial positions and social interactions within and between these institutions and treat them as related spaces (Abbott, 2016; Bourdieu, 2005; Emirbayer, 1997; Liu, 2021). Institutional proximity describes neither a fixed social structure nor a proximity of geographic or physical distance.…”

“…All the three types of institutional proximity can facilitate judicial corruption by connecting judges responsible for a specific legal case with litigants, family members, state officials, or other actors who seek to exercise influence on the judicial decision. Whereas existing research emphasizes the behavioral or institutional incentives of corrupt judges or the exchange of power and resources between individual actors (e.g., a judge is bribed by a litigant), our approach focuses on two spatial mechanisms by which institutional proximity facilitates judicial corruption, namely, linking ecologies (Serafin, 2019) and space travelers (Liu, 2021).…”