The emergence of social folds: how the environment contributes to the creation of ambivalent social actors
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2023
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Springer
Citations
Exportar
Citation
Abstract
The concept of “environment” is ambiguous in social theory. Sometimes it is wielded like a “tyrant” which moulds subjects as if they were a simple refection of its environment; other times it is treated as if the environment is a “slave” of subjects whose agency can transform it. This paper refects on the complex interaction between people and their environments. Social theory cannot establish a univocal, abstract, fnal explanation of the infuence of the environment on people’s behaviour and identity. Each environment will have a situational confguration that will have diferent consequences depending on other biological and cultural traits of the subject. Each specifc situation must be analysed empirically to understand this complex interaction. The subject-environment mismatch creates “social folds” — that is wrinkles which open new social spaces and enable freedom. The modulation between environment and subject creates risks to freedom, but also liberating opportunities.
Description
This paper is funded by the R&D Project “A proposal for the epistemological integration of sociology and biology from the analysis of human ambivalence (PR65/19-22435) (2020–2022)” granted to the author by the Administration of the Community of Madrid and Complutense University of Madrid (Spain).
Referencias Bibliográficas:
• Blanco, C. (2016). Más allá de la cultura y de la religión. Madrid: Dykinson.
• Blasco, E. J. (2020). “Carrera por los recursos espaciales: de la minería al control de rutas”. Global Afairs Journal 2: 32-39.
• Boehm, C. (1989). “Ambivalence and Compromise in Human Nature”. American Anthropologist 91(4): 921-939.
• Bonduriansky, R. and Day, T. (2018). Extended Heredity. A new understanding of inheritance and evolution. Princeton y Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1989). “Intérêt et désintéressement” (Cours du Collège de France). Cahiers de recherche du GRS 7.
• Callejo Gallego, J. and Viedma Rojas, A. (2006). Proyectos y estrategias de Investigación Social: la perspectiva de la intervención. Madrid: McGrawHill.
• Collins, R. (1978). “Some Principles of Long-term Social Change: the Territorial Power of States”. In: L. Kriesberg (ed.), Research in Social Movements, Conficts, and Change, vol. 1. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1-34.
• Dartnell, L. (2020). Orígenes. Cómo la historia de la tierra determina la historia de la humanidad. Barcelona: Debate.
• Dawkins, R. (2017). El gen egoísta extendido. Madrid: Salvat. Editors. (2023). “Use Nature as Infrastructure”. Scientifc American 328(4): 8.
• Elias, N. (1981). Was ist Soziologie? München: Juventa Verlag
• García, E. (2004). Medio ambiente y sociedad. La civilización industrial y los límites del planeta. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
• García de Leániz, C. (2022). “La fragmentación de los ríos”. Investigación y Ciencia 549: 47-56. Gofman, E. (1969). Strategic interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Gordon, D. (2022). What Is Academic Freedom? A Century of Debate, 1915-Present. London: Routledge Press.
• Hillery, G. A. et al. (1979). “A Theory of Integration and Freedom”. The Sociological Quarterly 20: 551–563.
• Hughes, Th. P. (2004) Human-Built World. How to think about Technology and Culture. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
• Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld. From Garden to Earth. Indiana: The Indiana University Press.
• Kerbo, H. R. (2004). Estratifcación Social y Desigualdad. El conficto de clase en perspectiva histórica, comparada y global. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
• Laland, K. M. and O’Brien, M. J. (2012). “Cultural Niche Construction: An Introduction”. Biological Theory 6(3): 191-202.
• Langford, J. and Clance, P. R. (1993). “The impostor phenomenon: recent research fndings regarding dynamics, personality and family patterns and their implications for treatment”. Psychotherapy 30(3): 495-501.
• Law, J. (1992). “Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity”. Systemic Practice and Action Research 5(4): 379-393.
• Lewontin, R. (2000). El sueño del genoma humano y otras ilusiones. Barcelona: Paidós.
• Lüscher, K. (2012). “Menschen als ‘homines ambivalentes’”. In: D. Korczak (Ed.). Ambivalenzerfahrungen. Kröning: Asangen Verlag.
• Lüscher K. (2002). “Intergenerational ambivalence: Further steps in theory and research”. Journal of Marriage and Family 64(3): 585–94.
• Merton, R. K. (1976). Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York: Free Press.
• Miguel Gómez, C. (2012). Interculturality, Rationality and Dialogue. In Search for Intercultural Argumentative Criteria for Latin America. Würzburg: Ecther Verlag,
• Moore, D. S. (2017). The Developing Genome. An Introduction to Behavioral Epigenetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Perrin, A. J. (2007). “The undertheorized environment: sociological theory and the ontology of behavioral genetics”. Social Perspectives 50(2): 303-322.
• Petryszak, N. (1979). “The Biosociology of the Social Self”. The Sociological Quarterly 20: 291-303.
• Rammert, W. (1997). “New Rules of sociological method: rethinking technology studies”. British Journal of Sociology 48: 171-191.
• Rammert, W. (2002) “Die teshnische Konstruktion als Teil der gesellschaftlichen Konstrucktion der Wirklichkeit”. Technical University Tecnhology Studies Working Papers
• Riddley, M. (2004). Qué nos hace humanos. Madrid: Taurus.
• Roberts, P. and Stewart, B. (2018). “Defning the ‘generalist specialist’ niche for Pleistocene Homo sapiens”. Nature Human Behaviour 2: 542-550.
• Rhodes, J. (2015). Instrumental. Memorias de música, medicina y locura, Barcelona: Blackie Books.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2023a). Sociología y antropología. Prolegómenos antropológicos para la teoría social. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2023b). “Biology, Culture and Environment. Methodological and Epistemological Principles for an Integrative Social Theory”. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science 57: 444-465.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2022a). Limits and possibilities of resilience as a psycho-sociological strategic game. An interdisciplinary approach. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science 13 SP-3: 1-13
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2022b). “The Halfway Society: Towards a Defnition of the Features of Human Sociality”. Revista Centra de Ciencias Sociales 1(1): 133-150.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2022c). “Ageing Brain and geopolitical leadership. A bio-psycho-sociological approach to the fall of Sharif of Mecca Hussein ibn Ali, 1908-1924”. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 47(1): 76-96
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2019). El tapiz de Oriente Medio. Geopolítica. Poder. Religión. Sevilla: Ecúmene Ediciones.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2018). “Is the Ambivalence a Sign of the Multiple-Self Nature of the Human Being? Interdisciplinary Remarks”. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science 52: 523-545.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2015). “Hacia una comprensión micro-situacional de la ambivalencia entre libertad humana y entornos artifciales”. Argumentos de razón técnica 18: 111-139
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2014). “The Margins of Free Action. Toward a Situational Understanding of the Human Being”. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 51(2): 145-181
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2013). Los fundamentos de la sociología de Norbert Elias, Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
• Rotta Loria, A.F. (2023). “The silent impact of underground climate change on civil infrastructure”. Communications Engenering 2(44): 1-12.
• Ryan, M. J. (2018). El gusto por la belleza. Biología de la atracción. Barcelona: Antoni Bosch Editor.
• Santiago, J. (2015). Siete lecciones de sociología de la religión y del nacionalismo. Barcelona: Anthropos.
• Sapolsky, R. (2019). “Desigualdad económica y salud pública”. Investigación y Ciencia 508: 69-71.
• Sapolsky, R. (2018). Compórtate. La biología que hay detrás de nuestros mejores y peores comportamientos. Madrid: Capitán Swing.
• Scarr, S. and McCartney, K. (1983). “How People Make Their Own Environments: A Theory of Genotype → Environment Efects”. Child Development 54(2): 424-435.
• Schläpfer, M., Dong, L., O’Keefe, K. et al. (2021). “The universal visitation law of human mobility”. Nature 593: 522–527.
• Serpell, J. (1996). In the company of animals. A study of HumanAnimal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Special Report. (2023). “Innovations in Environmental Health Equity”. Scientifc American 329(3): s1-s27.
• Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (1992). “The Psychological Foundations of Culture”. In: Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. Tooby, J. The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Turner, J. and Maryanski, A. (2016). On the Origin of Societies by Natural Selection. London: Routledge. Vallés, J.M. and Martí i Puig, S. (2019). Ciencia política. Un manual. Barcelona: Ariel.
• Vallés, J.M. and Martí i Puig, S. (2019). Ciencia política. Un manual. Barcelona: Ariel.
• Wright, W. (2000). Así nacemos. Genes, conducta, personalidad. Madrid: Taurus.
• Williams, R. (2003) Retooling. A Historian Confronts the Technological Change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.