Acting Together in Asymmetrical Ways : Towards a New Sociological Understanding of Asymmetrical Coaction
(2021) 15th ESA Conference 2021- Abstract
- How can we sociologically grasp asymmetries that permeate social life? By way of introduction, I would like to emphasize three dimensions of [a]symmetry: differences in resource holdings and [a]symmetrical resource distributions; [a]symmetrical distributions of tasks and responsibilities, rights and duties that follow from social differentiation and social positioning; and qualitative and quantitative differences when it comes to how entangled social actors contribute to the accomplishment of social events through interrelated social actions and reactions. My suggestion is that the third dimension is understood in terms of [a]symmetrical coaction: through more or less asymmetrical social coactions, social actors relating to each other in... (More)
- How can we sociologically grasp asymmetries that permeate social life? By way of introduction, I would like to emphasize three dimensions of [a]symmetry: differences in resource holdings and [a]symmetrical resource distributions; [a]symmetrical distributions of tasks and responsibilities, rights and duties that follow from social differentiation and social positioning; and qualitative and quantitative differences when it comes to how entangled social actors contribute to the accomplishment of social events through interrelated social actions and reactions. My suggestion is that the third dimension is understood in terms of [a]symmetrical coaction: through more or less asymmetrical social coactions, social actors relating to each other in one way or another together accomplish all those social events that constitute social life. From an analytical distinction between social coaction and social interaction, I will proceed with the question of how social coaction is possible. Arguably, taking the plausible social responses and reactions of other social actors into consideration is crucial; so is imagining how other social actors might have taken plausible social responses and reactions into account when acting. The question, then, is how social actors do this. Via retroduction it is possible to arrive at social microprocesses that must go on for social actors to be able to accomplish social events. Theoretical insights into how social actors presumably relate to one another through their social actions and reactions may lead our attention to who makes coacting possible and how. Starting from a theoretical idea of enlarged mentality, I have distinguished four types of mentalization as well as four types of enlarged mentality. Hopefully, these suggestions can further sensitization to asymmetries when analysing social coaction. Reciprocity in no way contradicts asymmetry. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/ef5e0c0c-a757-4833-8c8b-b907ba621420
- author
- Engstam, Anna LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021-08
- type
- Contribution to conference
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- asymmetry, social interaction, social coaction, retroduction, enlarged mentality, mentalization
- conference name
- 15th ESA Conference 2021
- conference location
- Barcelona, Spain
- conference dates
- 2021-08-31 - 2021-09-03
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- ef5e0c0c-a757-4833-8c8b-b907ba621420
- date added to LUP
- 2023-12-13 20:37:26
- date last changed
- 2023-12-14 08:14:54
@misc{ef5e0c0c-a757-4833-8c8b-b907ba621420,
abstract = {{How can we sociologically grasp asymmetries that permeate social life? By way of introduction, I would like to emphasize three dimensions of [a]symmetry: differences in resource holdings and [a]symmetrical resource distributions; [a]symmetrical distributions of tasks and responsibilities, rights and duties that follow from social differentiation and social positioning; and qualitative and quantitative differences when it comes to how entangled social actors contribute to the accomplishment of social events through interrelated social actions and reactions. My suggestion is that the third dimension is understood in terms of [a]symmetrical coaction: through more or less asymmetrical social coactions, social actors relating to each other in one way or another together accomplish all those social events that constitute social life. From an analytical distinction between social coaction and social interaction, I will proceed with the question of how social coaction is possible. Arguably, taking the plausible social responses and reactions of other social actors into consideration is crucial; so is imagining how other social actors might have taken plausible social responses and reactions into account when acting. The question, then, is how social actors do this. Via retroduction it is possible to arrive at social microprocesses that must go on for social actors to be able to accomplish social events. Theoretical insights into how social actors presumably relate to one another through their social actions and reactions may lead our attention to who makes coacting possible and how. Starting from a theoretical idea of enlarged mentality, I have distinguished four types of mentalization as well as four types of enlarged mentality. Hopefully, these suggestions can further sensitization to asymmetries when analysing social coaction. Reciprocity in no way contradicts asymmetry.}},
author = {{Engstam, Anna}},
keywords = {{asymmetry; social interaction; social coaction; retroduction; enlarged mentality; mentalization}},
language = {{eng}},
title = {{Acting Together in Asymmetrical Ways : Towards a New Sociological Understanding of Asymmetrical Coaction}},
year = {{2021}},
}