REINSTATING FUNCTIONALISM IN THE FIGURATIONAL APPROACH TO ORGANIZATIONS

Aleksejs Šņitņikovs

doi:10.17770/sie2021vol6.6337

Authors

Aleksejs Šņitņikovs Riga Technical University (LV)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2021vol6.6337

Keywords:

civilizing process, figuration, functionalism, interdependence, organization, relationism, technology

Abstract

Over the past two decades, there have been attempts to apply ideas from figurational sociology founded by Norbert Elias in research of different aspects of organizational life. The central contributions are derived from his theory of the civilizing process and the principles of process sociology. While this research mostly is relevant for contemporary organization theory, many contributions tend to emphasize Elias’s relational approach to the neglect of his functionalism, which underlies the whole corpus of Elias’s works. Rediscovery of Elias’s functionalism opens up the way for a fruitful reinterpretation of the central concept of his sociology, figuration, and enables to find new ways of combining figurational sociology with more familiar approaches to organization theory, in particular, with contingency theory. This helps to identify the factor of technology in the theory of the civilizing process and place it in the context of the concepts of figurational sociology such as interdependence, power and subjectivity, which enhances the analytical strength of figurational approach to organizations. The paper discusses some applications of figurational sociology to date and points to new directions in the study of organizations with the use of the conceptual tools of figurational approach.

References

Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collectivity from Science, Technology and Society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(2), 165-182.

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Clegg, S., & Baumeler, C. (2010). Essai: From Iron Cages to Liquid Modernity in Organization Analysis. Organization Studies, 31(12), 1713–1733.

Clegg, S. R., & van Iterson, A. (2013). The effects of liquefying place, time, and organizational boundaries on employee behaviour: Lessons of classical sociology. M@n@gement, 16(5), 621–635.

Connolly, J. & Dolan, P. (2012). Re-theorizing the ‘structure–agency’ relationship: Figurational theory, organizational change and the Gaelic Athletic Association, Organization, 20(4), 491-511.

Connolly, J. (2016). Elias and habitus: explaining bureaucratisation processes in the Gaelic Athletic Association. Culture & Organization, 22(5), 452-475.

Dopson, S. (2001). Applying an Eliasian Approach to Organizational Analysis, Organization, 8(3), 515-535.

Elias, N. (1978). What is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.

Elias, N. (1991). The Society of Individuals. London: Continuum.

Elias, N. (2000). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.

Elias, N. (2006). The Court Society. Dublin: Dublin University Press.

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281-317.

Hatch, M. J. (2018). Organization Theory. Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kaspersen, L.B., & Gabriel, N. (2008). The importance of survival units for Norbert Elias’s figurational perspective. The Sociological Review, 56(3), 370-387.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2001). Power and Interdependence. Third Edition. New York: Longman.

Kilminster, R., & Wouters, C. (1995). From philosophy to sociology: Elias and the neo-Kantians (a response to Benjo Maso). Theory, Culture & Society, 12(3), 81-120.

Mastenbroek, W. (2002a). Norbert Elias as organizational sociologist. In: A. van Iterson, W. Mastenbroek, T. Newton, & D. Smith (Eds.). The Civilized Organization. Norbert Elias and the future of Organization Studies (173-188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Mastenbroek, W. (2002b). Management and organization: Does Elias give us something to hold on to? In: A. van Iterson, W. Mastenbroek, T. Newton, & D. Smith (Eds.), The Civilized Organization. Norbert Elias and the future of Organization Studies (205-218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Mennell, S. (1998). Norbert Elias: An Introduction. Dublin: University College Dublin Press.

Miller, V. (2020). Understanding Digital Culture. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications.

Newton, T. (2001). Organization: The Relevance and the Limitations of Elias. Organization, 8(3), 467-495.

Scott, R. W., & Davis, G. D. (2016). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Stacey, R. (2003). Learning as an activity of interdependent people. The Learning Organization, 10(6), 325–331.

Stacey, R. (2005). 29th S.H. Foulkes Annual Lecture: Organizational Identity: The Paradox of Continuity and Potential Transformation at the Same Time. Group Analysis, 38(4), 477-494.

Stacey, R. (2007). The challenge of human interdependence. Consequences for thinking about the day to day practice of management in organizations. European Business Review, 19(4), 292–302.

Tilly, C. (1992). Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Cambridge: Blackwell.

van Dijk, J. (2020). The Network Society. London: Sage.

van Krieken R. (1996). Proto-Governmentalization and the Historical Formation of Organizational Subjectivity. Economy & Society, 25(2), 195-221.

van Krieken, R. (2018). Towards process-figurational theory in organization studies. Cambio, 8(16), 141-157. DOI: 10.13128/cambio-23911