The Relational Self, the Social Bond and the Dynamics of Personal Relationships : A Sociological Analysis

This study analyses personal relationships linking research to sociological theory on the questions of the social bond and on the self as social. From the viewpoint of disruptive life events and experiences, such as loss, divorce and illness, it aims at understanding how selves are bound to their significant others as those specific people ‘close or otherwise important’ to them. Who form the configurations of significant others? How do different bonds respond in disruptions and how do relational processes unfold? How is the embeddedness of selves manifested in the processes of bonding, on the one hand, and in the relational formation of the self, on the other? The bonds are analyzed from an anti-categorical viewpoint based on personal citations of significance as opposed to given relationship categories, such as ‘family’ or ‘friendship’ – the two kinds of relationships that in fact are most frequently significant. The study draws from analysis of the personal narratives of 37 Finnish women and men (in all 80 interviews) and their entire configurations of those specific people who they cite as ‘close or otherwise important’. The analysis stresses the subjective experiences, while also investigating the actualized relational processes and configurations of all personal relationships with certain relationship histories embedded in micro-level structures. The research is based on four empirical sub-studies of personal relationships and a summary discussing the questions of the self and social bond. Discussion draws from G. H. Mead, C. Cooley, N. Elias, T. Scheff, G. Simmel and the contributors of ‘relational sociology’. Sub-studies analyse bonds to others from the viewpoint of biographical disruption and re-configuration of significant others, estranged family bonds, peer support and the formation of the most intimate relationships into exclusive and inclusive configurations. All analyses examine the dialectics of the social and the personal, asking how different structuring mechanisms and personal experiences and negotiations together contribute to the unfolding of the bonds. The summary elaborates personal relationships as social bonds embedded in wider webs of interdependent people and social settings that are laden with cultural expectations. Regarding the question of the relational self, the study proposes both bonding and individuality as significant. They are seen as interdependent phases of the relationality of the self. Bonding anchors the self to its significant relationships, in which individuality is manifested, for example, in contrasting and differentiating dynamics, but also in active attempts to connect with others. Individuality is not a fixed quality of the self, but a fluid and interdependent phase of the relational self. More specifically, it appears in three formats in the flux of relational processes: as a sense of unique self (via cultivation of subjective experiences), as agency and as (a search for) relative autonomy. The study includes an epilogue addressing the ambivalence between the social expectation of individuality in society and the bonded reality of selves.

"Onko yhteisöllisyydellä väliä?" : identiteettiprosessi ja sosiaalinen pääoma epävarmuuden sietämisen merkityksellisinä elementteinä

”Does the community really count? – identity process and social capital as elements in surviving in insecurity and uncertainty” is a combination of five articles. The aim of this study is to answer the question: how or in which ways is it possible to find the role of identity process and social capital in surviving in insecurity and uncertainty? In the introduction part the concepts of community and social capital are examined. Then I will study the articles and try to find out what kinds of elements of identity process and social capital in them can be found in order to survive in the societal change. The study consists of the introduction part and the articles. The articles are: 1. “Is Becoming a Researcher Some Kind of Role-playing” - Roles of the Researcher in the Process of Forming the Identity 2. What Composes Collective Identity in the Polytechnic Community? 3. Opportunities to Succeed or Fear of Failure? -Entrepreneurship from the Youngsters` Point of View 4. Learning Risk-taking Competences 5. “Bricolage”, or Just Putting Things Together? The starting point for the study is the feeling of insecurity that surrounds a person living in the present society: you cannot be sure with whom you are going to co-operate tomorrow. In the “Good Old Days” the harmonious communities “protected” their members and worked strongly toward common aims. Nowadays, partly because of urbanisation, we are so busy that we only have time to take care of ourselves, or rather to say: just of myself. As Bauman (2001) puts it: people turn to communities in which they feel like home. They still long for communality. For Mead (1962) the group and the communality plays a big role: a person needs others to become the whole ”Self.” In acting with others a person can gain much more than working alone (Field 2003). But, as Day (2006) puts it, the reality of community as discovered by empirical reserach is a great deal messier than the abstract and idealized versions used by theorists. Keywords: uncertainty, insecurity, communality, identity process, social capital, significant groups, survival.

From Habits to Social Structures : Pragmatism and Contemporary Social Theory

Pragmatism has sometimes been taken as a catchphrase for epistemological stances in which anything goes. However, other authors argue that the real novelty and contribution of this tradition has to do with its view of action as the context in which all things human take place. Thus, it is action rather than, for example, discourses that should be our starting point in social theory. The introductory section of the book situates pragmatism (especially the ideas of G. H. Mead and John Dewey) within the field and tradition of social theory. This introductory also contextualizes the main core of the book which consists of four chapters. Two of these chapters have been published as articles in scientific journals and one in an edited book. All of them discuss the core problem of social theory: how is action related to social structures (and vice versa)? The argument is that habitual action is the explanation for the emergence of social structures from our action. Action produces structures and social reproduction takes place when action is habitualized; that is, when we develop social dispositions to act in a certain manner in familiar environments. This also means that even though the physical environment is the same for all of us, our habits structure it into different kinds of action possibilities. Each chapter highlights these general insights from different angles. Practice theory has gained momentum in recent years and it has many commonalities with pragmatism because both highlight the situated and corporeal character of human activity. One famous proponent of practice theory is Margaret Archer who has argued that the pragmatism of G. H. Mead leads to an oversocialized conception of selfhood. Mead does indeed present a socialized view of selfhood but this is a meta-sociological argument rather than a substantial sociological claim. Accordingly, one can argue that in this general sense intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity and not the other way around. Such a view does not indicate that our social relation would necessarily "colonize" individual action because there is a place for internal conversations (in Archer s terminology); it is especially in those phases of action where it meets obstacles due to the changes of the environment. The second issue discussed has the background assumption that social structures can fruitfully be conceptualized as institutions. A general classification of different institution theories is presented and it is argued that there is a need for a habitual theory of institutions due to the problems associated with these other theories. So-called habitual institutionalism accounts for institutions in terms of established and prevalent social dispositions that structure our social interactions. The germs of this institution theory can be found in the work of Thorstein Veblen. Since Veblen s times, these ideas have been discussed for example, by the economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson. His ideas on the evolution of institutions are presented but a critical stance is taken towards his tendency of defining institutions with the help of rules because rules are not always present in institutions. Accordingly, habitual action is the most basic but by no means the only aspect of institutional reproduction. The third chapter deals with theme of action and structures in the context of Pierre Bourdieu s thought. Bourdieu s term habitus refers to a system of dispositions which structure social fields. It is argued that habits come close to the concept of habitus in the sense that the latter consists of particular kinds of habits; those that are related to the reproduction of socioeconomic positions. Habits are thus constituents of a general theory of societal reproduction whereas habitus is a systematic combination of socioeconomic habits. The fourth theme relates to issues of social change and development. The capabilities approach has been associated with the name of Amartya Sen, for example, and it underscores problems inhering in economistic ways of evaluating social development. However, Sen s argument has some theoretical problems. For example, his theory cannot adequately confront the problem of relativism. In addition, Sen s discussion lacks also a theory of the role of the public. With the help of arguments derived from pragmatism, one gets an action-based, socially constituted view of freedom in which the role of the public is essential. In general, it is argued that a socially constituted view of agency does not necessarily to lead to pessimistic conclusions about the freedom of action.

Hoivakodin työntekijöiden työhyvinvointi symbolisen interaktionismin näkökulmasta - Työssä kohdattujen ongelmien ja sosiaalisten suhteiden tarkastelua

Tutkielma keskittyy hoivahenkilöstön työhyvinvoinnin merkityksiin ja sen ongelmakohtiin erään vanhusten hoivalaitoksen henkilökunnan kertomana. Tutkimuksen teoreettisena viitekehyksenä toimii Blumerin (1969) teoria symbolisesta interaktionismista, sekä Strykerin strukturaalinen symbolinen interaktionismi (2008). Tutkimuskohteena ovat sosiaaliset prosessit siltä osin kuin ne haittaavat tai tukevat työhyvinvointia hoivalaitoksissa. Tutkielman tavoitteena ei ole käyttää grounded theorya uuden teorian löytämiseen, vaan uusien työhyvinvoinnin tekijöiden kartoittamiseen. Tutkimuskysymykset käsittelivät sitä, millaisena työhyvinvointi näyttäytyy haastateltavien kertomana. Ja lisäksi tarkasteltiin sitä, miten sosiaaliset suhteet työyhteisössä kytkeytyvät työhyvinvoinnin eri aspekteihin. Vanhustenhoidon erityispiirteitä ja aikaisempia työhyvinvoinnin tutkimuksia käydään läpi, sekä kartoitetaan vanhustenhoidon tilaa suomalaisessa yhteiskunnassa. Työhyvinvoinnin käsitettä tarkastellaan sekä yleisesti että vanhustenhoidon osalta. Tutkimusmenetelmänä toimi laadullinen aineistolähtöinen symboliseen interaktionismiin perustuva grounded theory. Aineisto koostui puolistrukturoiduista haastatteluista ja käsitti yhteensä 24 haastattelua, joista 12 valittiin tähän tutkielmaan. Kaikki haastateltavat olivat naisia, johon kuului 8 lähi- ja perushoitajaa, 2 sairaanhoitajaa ja 2 osastonhoitajaa. Haastateltavien valinnan kriteerinä oli työskentely pitkäaikaispotilaiden osastolla. Aineisto analysoitiin glaserilaista grounded theory metodologiaa käyttäen hyödyntäen abduktion logiikkaa. Haastattelut analysoitiin grounded theory metodologian mukaisesti avoimen ja selektiivisen koodauksen avulla CAT-ohjelmaa apuna käyttäen. Tutkimustulosten perusteella havaittiin, että työhyvinvointi koostuu dynaamisista työyhteisön prosesseista, joita säätelevät luottamuksen ja vallankäytön tasapainottelu. Työhyvinvointia kannatteleviin tekijöihin lukeutui avoin kommunikaatio, kollegiaalinen tuki, tasavertaisuus ja yhteiset pelisäännöt. Työhyvinvointia haittaaviksi sosiaalisiksi prosesseiksi fokusoitui vallankäyttö, joka oli selkein työhyvinvointia uhkaava kategoria haastateltavien puheessa. Se oli yhteydessä lukuisiin suoriin ja epäsuoriin interaktion muotoihin, kuten vaientamiseen, syyllistämiseen ja nonkommunikaatioon. Hoivaorganisaation keskeinen dynaaminen elementti oli hoivaorganisaation jähmeys, joka näkyi monella tapaa työyhteisön arjessa vaikeuttaen koko organisaation toimintaa. Organisaation johdolla on merkitystä hoivaorganisaation toiminnan kannalta sekä puheen kulttuurin että konservatiivisen johtamisen muodossa. Merkityssisältöjen erilaisuus johdon ja alaisten välillä aiheutti vuorovaikutuksen vaikeutumista. Sosiaaliset suhteet olivat odotetusti tärkeässä asemassa hoivahenkilöstön työn arjessa. Analyysin tulokset tukivat hoivalaitoksien työntekijöiden työhyvinvointitutkimuksen aikaisempaa linjaa, joissa on korostettu sosiaalisten suhteiden, luottamuksen ja vallankäytön merkitystä työhyvinvointiin. Työn tarkoituksena oli tuottaa uusia työhyvinvoinnin tekijöitä. Tällaisena voidaan pitää nonkommunikaation merkitystä organisaation vuorovaikutusprosessien kannalta. Tutkielman keskeisimmät lähteet ovat: Blumer, H.: Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method; Utriainen, K.: Arvostava vastavuoroisuus ikääntyvien sairaanhoitajien työhyvinvoinnin ytimenä hoitotyössä, sekä Stryker, S.: From Mead to a Structural Symbolic Interactionism and Beyond.