What Is the Direction of the “Relational Turn”?

Abstract

There is no doubt that relational thinking has become an important intellectual tendency in human sciences and even beyond. If one types “relational” on amazon.com, for instance, he or she will find recent publications on “relational Judaism,” “relational theology,” “on the relational revolution in psychology,” the “relational theory and the practice of psychotherapy,” “relational concepts in psychoanalysis,” “relational child psychotherapy,” “relational suicide assessment,” “relational leading” in organizations, “relational reality,” “relational intelligence,” “relational masks,” “relational archeology,” “relational sociology” of course, and much more. The word “relational” is here, there, and everywhere these days. One could ask if there is really something common to all those texts beyond the use of the word “relational.” I will not do this exercise in this chapter. I will restrict myself to what I know better: social theory. Social theorists have played a key role in this “relational turn.” This intellectual tendency is usually founded on huge ambitions. Most if not all relational sociologists see relational sociology (RS in the rest of the chapter) as a new “paradigm.” This is clear with recent publications, such as the books of P. Donati (2011) and N. Crossley (2011). One can find a similar spirit with network analysts such as Barry Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz (see Wellman 1997, Wellman and Berkowitz 1997).