26
In their study of transnational migration, Levitt and Schiller (Levitt and Schiller
2004) applied field theory to highlight and study hidden institutions and social processes, and, importantly, challenge a routine notion of geographical scales (Levitt
and Schiller 2004):
The concept of social field also calls into question neat divisions of connection into local,
national, transnational, and global. In one sense, all are local in that near and distant connections penetrate the daily lives of individuals lived within a locale.
Sociologists Fligstein and McAdam (2012) aim to construct a comprehensive
and general theory of fields. Even if fields may lend similarities from systems and
from institutional logics (Scott 1995), fundamental differences exist. They see strategic action fields as meso-level social orders which are the basic structural building
blocks of modern political and organisational life. The identification and understanding of these strategic action fields are the basis for studying stability and
change in society. Importantly, relations exist independently of whether people are
aware of them or not, and whether people want them or not. Bourdieu was primarily
interested in fields such as culture, education, and religion. In their general theory
of fields, Fligstein and McAdam expand the notion of fields to become a more or
less universal concept for studying social change and social order. In doing so, they
expand the conceptual vocabulary and the horizon for what to study as a field.
The concept of incumbents and challengers was first introduced in field theory in
the 1970s by William Gamson (1975) in his investigations of social movements.
Incumbents have disproportionate power in or over a field and where the field in
turn supports them. In contrast, challengers are less privileged in the field and are
either in opposition to, or are more often suppressed by the field.
As an important argument against rational choice explanations of social change
in a field, Fligstein and McAdam strongly argue that ‘the material and the existential cannot be disentangled’ (Fligstein and Fligstein and McAdam 2012, p 49).
They also stress the importance of social skills, defined as capacity for intersubjective thought and action in social relations. The concept of social skill is rooted in
symbolic interactionism which rests on three main assumptions (Blumer 1986):
1. individuals act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those
things (i.e. things have no universal value in themselves),
2. the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction
that one has with others and with society implying that decisions are primarily
relational rather than individual, and
3. these meanings are handled in, and modified or recreated through, an interpretative process used by the individual in dealing with the things s/he encounters.
To exemplify the use of social fields and natural systems, we look at the issue of
adaptation to current and future impacts of climate change. The number and severity
of climatic extremes have clearly increased in recent years as a result of climate
change (Field et al. 2012). Many of these events are associated with great losses of
people, livelihoods, and property (Olsson et al. 2014) as well as with displacement
and migration (Ionesco et al. 2016). The social responses to climate impacts are
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson
In their study of transnational migration, Levitt and Schiller (Levitt and Schiller
2004) applied field theory to highlight and study hidden institutions and social processes, and, importantly, challenge a routine notion of geographical scales (Levitt
and Schiller 2004):
The concept of social field also calls into question neat divisions of connection into local,
national, transnational, and global. In one sense, all are local in that near and distant connections penetrate the daily lives of individuals lived within a locale.
Sociologists Fligstein and McAdam (2012) aim to construct a comprehensive
and general theory of fields. Even if fields may lend similarities from systems and
from institutional logics (Scott 1995), fundamental differences exist. They see strategic action fields as meso-level social orders which are the basic structural building
blocks of modern political and organisational life. The identification and understanding of these strategic action fields are the basis for studying stability and
change in society. Importantly, relations exist independently of whether people are
aware of them or not, and whether people want them or not. Bourdieu was primarily
interested in fields such as culture, education, and religion. In their general theory
of fields, Fligstein and McAdam expand the notion of fields to become a more or
less universal concept for studying social change and social order. In doing so, they
expand the conceptual vocabulary and the horizon for what to study as a field.
The concept of incumbents and challengers was first introduced in field theory in
the 1970s by William Gamson (1975) in his investigations of social movements.
Incumbents have disproportionate power in or over a field and where the field in
turn supports them. In contrast, challengers are less privileged in the field and are
either in opposition to, or are more often suppressed by the field.
As an important argument against rational choice explanations of social change
in a field, Fligstein and McAdam strongly argue that ‘the material and the existential cannot be disentangled’ (Fligstein and Fligstein and McAdam 2012, p 49).
They also stress the importance of social skills, defined as capacity for intersubjective thought and action in social relations. The concept of social skill is rooted in
symbolic interactionism which rests on three main assumptions (Blumer 1986):
1. individuals act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those
things (i.e. things have no universal value in themselves),
2. the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction
that one has with others and with society implying that decisions are primarily
relational rather than individual, and
3. these meanings are handled in, and modified or recreated through, an interpretative process used by the individual in dealing with the things s/he encounters.
To exemplify the use of social fields and natural systems, we look at the issue of
adaptation to current and future impacts of climate change. The number and severity
of climatic extremes have clearly increased in recent years as a result of climate
change (Field et al. 2012). Many of these events are associated with great losses of
people, livelihoods, and property (Olsson et al. 2014) as well as with displacement
and migration (Ionesco et al. 2016). The social responses to climate impacts are
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson