Micro‐situational Foundations of Social Structure: An Interactionist Exploration of Affective Sanctioning

Abstract

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.

Re-conceptualising authority relations in education: a micro-situational approach

“…As Macleod et al (2012, p. 493) point out, the implication is that teachers used to have authority, that they no longer do so, and that this is a situation that requires urgent redress. In contrast, we suggest that authority emerges as an intrinsic relation that is constituted through face-to-face interactions with others (Rafanell, 2013).…”

“…The latter view implies that authority is something that is possessed unambiguously by one party (the teacher) prior to entering into relation with others (the pupils). In contrast, we argue that the classroom be regarded as a particular 'life-world' that emerges from the interactions of a group of heterogeneous individuals who generate collective patterns of behaviour, practices and beliefs in and through their interactions (Rafanell, 2013).…”

“…Macleod et al (2012, p. 493) draw upon the other elements of the typology of power relations elaborated by Wrong (2002) (in addition to personal authority) as a 'useful conceptual framework' for exploring the 'domination of the narrow discourse of authority as control or force and a focus on pupils' behaviour'. They then proceed to demonstrate how the five forms of authority outlined by Wrong (2002), namely coercive, legitimate, competent, personal and authority by inducement, have 'some application to the classroom setting' (Macleod et al 2012, p. 499) The approach proposed by Macleod et al (2012) offers much of value, yet it embeds certain weaknesses that merit detailed consideration, especially in the context of a critique of conventional analyses of domination (see, for example, Rafanell and Gorringe, 2010;Rafanell, 2013). Macleod et al (2012) implicitly reject the role of micro-interactions as constitutive and thus fall prey to a deterministic bias that places undue emphasis on reified macro-structural features, such as the elements of Wrong's typology.…”

“…The guiding analytical framework that has informed the discussion of the policy documents is the theoretical position developed by Rafanell (2013). She compares two major sociological theories, Bourdieu's Theory of Practice (Bourdieu, 1995) and Barnes's less-known Performative Theory of Social Institutions (PTSI).…”

“…In sum, we shall argue that authority relations are intrinsic to particular classroom dynamics such as the reciprocal influences exerted by pupils on each other, by teachers on pupils, and vice versa. We draw upon the work of Rafanell (2013) and Rafanell and Gorringe (2010) to argue that authority should be seen as granted through social interaction in the classroom rather than possessed by the teacher prior to entering the classroom. We also implicitly question the assumptions of some of the exponents of symbolic interactionism.…”