Social Institutions and the Problem of Order: A Relational Approach to Neo-Institutionalism through Social System theory, Social Constructionism, and Critical Ideology Theory
Author: Olli Herranen, olli.p.herranen@gmail.com
Department: Faculty of Social Sciences
University: Tampere University, Finland
Supervisor: Risto Heiskala
Year of completion: 2020
Language of dissertation: English
Keywords:
ideology
, social institutions
, problem of order
, neo-institutionalism
Areas of Research:
Theory
, Conceptual and Terminological Analysis
, History of Sociology
Abstract
One of the most profound social scientific questions pertains to social order: how a society can simultaneously maintain its integration and co-ordination and whether a society can be understood as more than the sum of its parts. The most influential contemporary tradition of institutionalism, neo-institutionalism, is no exception with regard to these questions.
In the 1990s, some members of that school declared a ‘reconciliation agenda’ aimed at overcoming the vast gulf between ‘system’ and ‘lifeworld’ thinking in the social sciences, a chasm that separates between traditions on the basis of their perspective on the problem of order. Moreover, the neo-institutionalist pursuit was intended to offer a foundation for social studies that consider society to be structured but still changing, in all its richness and variety, without being unnecessarily formalistic. However, this reconciliation has not yet come about.
In-depth study pinpoints this failure is rooted in neo-institutionalism’s theoretical premises and in the need for academic demarcation. That conclusion is based on critical reconstruction of two branches of neo-institutionalism: historical institutionalism (HI), which represents ‘system’ thinking, and so-called ideational scholarship (IS), representing the ‘lifeworld’ approach. Neo-institutionalism's main problem is related to their background ontologies’ connection, on one hand, with dichotomies such as agent–structure and material–ideal and, on the other, with linear causal reasoning. For example, IS tends to create theoretical causal objects as tools for empirical enquiry, and thus, ends up giving these abstractions an ontological status, making them ‘things’ with inherent properties.
Although neo-institutionalists’ adoption of a more fine-grained and empirically based approach to institutions has addressed some shortcomings of earlier work, the ‘social’ denominator of the equation still appears to be neglected. Research into the highly debated issue of how to explain the institutional nature of society in a manner beyond the system–lifeworld dichotomy suggests proceeding from social relations.
A project was undertaken to revitalise the reconciliation agenda through reconstruction of further theoretical approaches. The social system theory of Talcott Parsons reconstructed in the project complements HI with a coherent structure to the theory. The perspective formed by a new reading of Parsons as a relational theorist offers a detailed description of institutional integration mechanisms also. The reconstruction of classical social constructionism, in turn, spotlights the focus on the (historical) formation of actors’ experiences. That formation is a key issue in all the traditions examined.
One element of departure is that all the ones mentioned above assume people’s equilibrium-seeking behaviour, while critical ideology theory turns this around. It asks how modern capitalist societies have held together notwithstanding their internal contradictions. Accordingly, it presents capitalist society as a contradiction-rich whole, where various groups, with differing interests, must come together to sufficient extent to maintain or challenge the prevailing order. Ideology theory describes the contradictory nature of society and explains how social relations produce disorder as an unintended consequence of mundane, institutionalised practices.
The project’s outputs include a synthesis of social relations that extends beyond the system–lifeworld division in examining how a society may operate as more than the sum of its parts.
