Two key themes in contemporary social theory are particularly relevant to the interpretation and critique of figurational sociology. On the one hand, some recent critiques of the sociological tradition — Touraine's attempt to deconstruct the received image of society is the most important example — have called into question a dominant paradigm that underlies both Marxist and structural-functional theories. Norbert Elias has not only anticipated some of the most important criticisms but also suggested correctives to some of the currently fashionable (...) alternatives. More specifically, his relationship to the sociological traditions and to its contemporary offshoots can be described in terms of six antitheses: his approach is anti-economistic, anti-normativistic, anti-reductionistic, anti-functionalist, anti-structuralist and anti-individualistic. On the other hand, the impact of all these critical strategies is somewhat blunted by the one-sided emphasis on power. A more balanced version of figurational sociology would need a concept of culture to match and counter-balance Elias's insights into the problematic of power. Further exploration of this issue could draw both on the classics and on post-Parsonian debates about cultural power and their interconnections. Cultural interpretations of power are the most important link between those two dimensions of social life; although Elias has never explicitly thematized them, his recent writings touch upon some aspects of their specifically modern variants. (shrink)

Touraine's critique of the sociological tradition has gradually come to focus on the very notion of society and the basic assumptions associated with it: the interpretation of social life as organized around central principles that are embodied in institutions and internalized by individuals, the tendency to subsume social structure and social change under the same determinants, and the rejection or minimization of the distinction between state and society. In the light of this critique, his earlier attempts to construct a systematic (...) theory seem premature. In particular, the key notion of historicity was overshadowed by the more restrictive concept of the “self-production of society” and the model of a “historical system of action”. But on the other hand, the open questions and unresolved problems of the earlier work underline the need for a further radicalization of the critique of the dominant image of society. This would lead to a conceptualization of social life in terms of interrelations and tensions between structures of culture and structures of power, both of which transcend the social field. A more Weberian perspective would thus replace the residual Durkheimianism of Touraine's earlier writings. (shrink)