Social Field: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Concept from [[Field Theory]], proposed for research into internet localization, as opposed to rival notions of [[Community]], [[Network]] or "public sphere" | Concept from [[Field Theory]], proposed for research into internet localization, as opposed to rival notions of [[Community]], [[Network]] or "public sphere" | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
John Postill: | John Postill: | ||
"In view of these difficulties with public sphere, I wish to propose instead the concept of ‘social field’ as one possible way of overcoming the community/network | "In view of these difficulties with public sphere, I wish to propose instead the concept of ‘social field’ as one possible way of overcoming the community/network impasse. Put simply, a social field is a domain of practice in which social agents compete and cooperate over the same public rewards and prizes (Martin 2003). One advantage of field is that it is a neutral, technical term lacking the normative idealism of both public sphere and community. Field theorists have developed a sophisticated vocabulary that is increasingly being recruited to the study of media (Benson 2007, Benson and Neveu 2005, Couldry 2007, Hesmondhalgh 2006, Peterson 2003). More pertinent to the case at hand, Field Theory offers us a framework with which to analyse the Internet-mediated relations between local authorities and residents by treating these two parties not as discrete entities but rather relationally, as two sectors of a porous, conflict-prone ‘field of residential affairs’ (see Epstein 1958, Venkatesh 2003)." | ||
(http://johnpostill.co.uk/articles/postill_localising_net.pdf) | |||
(http:// | =Discussion= | ||
Peggy Levitt: | |||
"In a 2004 article, Nina Glick Schiller and I proposed a notion of society based on the concept of social field and drew a distinction between ways of being and ways of belonging. Social fields are multi-dimensional and encompass structured interactions of differing forms, depth, and breadth that are differentiated in social theory by terms like “organization,” “institution,” “networks,” and “social movement.” National social fields are those that remain within national boundaries, while transnational social fields connect actors, through direct and indirect relations, across borders. Neither domain automatically takes precedence; rather determining the relative importance of nationally restricted and transnational social fields is an empirical question. | |||
The concept of social fields is a powerful tool for conceptualizing the social relations linking those who move and those who stay in one place. It takes us beyond the direct experience of movement into domains of interaction, where individuals who do not move have social ties with people who do. For example, because of these relationships, both non-migrants in a sending country or the children of immigrants in a receiving country can be influenced regularly by people, ideas, and material objects from far away. NGO staff who have never traveled or attended an international training workshop learn of ideas and practices from their co-workers who do. They gain the skills and know-how to participate in these social fields and they can access its social networks. Therefore, people with more direct social ties are not automatically more transnationally active than people with weaker connections. Nor can we assume that people with few direct cross-border ties are uninfluenced by the field’s dynamics." | |||
(http://governancexborders.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/transnational-studies-and-governance-4-transnational-studies-and-culture-in-motion/) | |||
Revision as of 04:36, 12 October 2010
Concept from Field Theory, proposed for research into internet localization, as opposed to rival notions of Community, Network or "public sphere"
Description
John Postill:
"In view of these difficulties with public sphere, I wish to propose instead the concept of ‘social field’ as one possible way of overcoming the community/network impasse. Put simply, a social field is a domain of practice in which social agents compete and cooperate over the same public rewards and prizes (Martin 2003). One advantage of field is that it is a neutral, technical term lacking the normative idealism of both public sphere and community. Field theorists have developed a sophisticated vocabulary that is increasingly being recruited to the study of media (Benson 2007, Benson and Neveu 2005, Couldry 2007, Hesmondhalgh 2006, Peterson 2003). More pertinent to the case at hand, Field Theory offers us a framework with which to analyse the Internet-mediated relations between local authorities and residents by treating these two parties not as discrete entities but rather relationally, as two sectors of a porous, conflict-prone ‘field of residential affairs’ (see Epstein 1958, Venkatesh 2003)." (http://johnpostill.co.uk/articles/postill_localising_net.pdf)
Discussion
Peggy Levitt:
"In a 2004 article, Nina Glick Schiller and I proposed a notion of society based on the concept of social field and drew a distinction between ways of being and ways of belonging. Social fields are multi-dimensional and encompass structured interactions of differing forms, depth, and breadth that are differentiated in social theory by terms like “organization,” “institution,” “networks,” and “social movement.” National social fields are those that remain within national boundaries, while transnational social fields connect actors, through direct and indirect relations, across borders. Neither domain automatically takes precedence; rather determining the relative importance of nationally restricted and transnational social fields is an empirical question.
The concept of social fields is a powerful tool for conceptualizing the social relations linking those who move and those who stay in one place. It takes us beyond the direct experience of movement into domains of interaction, where individuals who do not move have social ties with people who do. For example, because of these relationships, both non-migrants in a sending country or the children of immigrants in a receiving country can be influenced regularly by people, ideas, and material objects from far away. NGO staff who have never traveled or attended an international training workshop learn of ideas and practices from their co-workers who do. They gain the skills and know-how to participate in these social fields and they can access its social networks. Therefore, people with more direct social ties are not automatically more transnationally active than people with weaker connections. Nor can we assume that people with few direct cross-border ties are uninfluenced by the field’s dynamics." (http://governancexborders.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/transnational-studies-and-governance-4-transnational-studies-and-culture-in-motion/)
More Information
- Community Informatics ; Networked Individualism: rival concepts
- Background on Field Theory