Skip to main content
Log in

Gratitude and the Relational Theory of Society

  • ARENA OF REGULATION
  • Published:
Human Arenas Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The social sciences and the humanities—especially sociology and psychology—have adopted a “negativistic” approach since their inception, i.e., a modus operandi that tends to bring out only negative or pathological phenomena without ever highlighting positive and healthy ones. Moreover, they were characteristically oriented towards societal contrasts often ignoring the meaningful interactions between all the elements that constitute and give life to socio-cultural phenomena (personality, society, and culture). Researchers usually refer to conditions that affect the individual, but further analysis shows that in everyday life these conditions are in fact closely related to social and cultural aspects. The latter feature has often been neglected in studies on positive aspects of daily life such as gratitude, altruism, solidarity, cooperation, etc., since these are not considered a problematic (negative) aspect of society but rather a regular aspect of human and social events. From here, starting from Archer’s morphogenetic cycle and reaching out to Luccarelli’s The Asymmetry in Gratitude, we will examine through the perspective of the relational theory of society gratitude as a symbolic-cultural reality and therefore a key to read daily life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambrige: University Press Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P. (2011a). Relational sociology. A new paradigm for the social sciences. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P. (2011b). Modernization and relational reflexivity. International Review of Sociology – Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 21(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2011.544178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P. (2011c). Cultural change, family transitions and reflexivity in a morphogenetic society. Memorandum, 21, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donati, P., & Archer, M. (2015). The relational subject. Cambrige: University Press Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1997). The depoliticisation of risk. In R. J. Ellis & M. Thompson (Eds.), Culture matters: Essays in honour of Aaron Wildavsky (pp. 121–132). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubar, C. (2003). La socialisasion. Construction des identités socailes et professionalles. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumez, H. (2016). Méthodologie recherche qualitative. Les questions clés de la démarche compréhensive. Paris: Vuibert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griswold, W. (1994). Cultures and societies in a changing world. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, V. (2014). The Palgrave handbook of altruism, morality, and social solidarity: Formulating a field of study. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility. In Search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luccarelli, V. (2018). The asymmetry in gratitude. Hu Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0016-8.

  • Mangone, E. (2017). Risk according to the relational theory of society. Stan Rzeczy, 12, 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxim, P. S. (1999). Quantitative research methods in the social sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mutti, A. (2007). Distrust. In Italian Sociological Association (Ed.), Annual Review of Italian Sociology 2007 (47-63). Naples : Srciptaweb.It.

  • Nichols, L. T. (2012). North central sociological association presidential address. Renewing sociology: Integral science, solidarity, and loving kindness. Sociological Focus, 45(4), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sorokin, P. A. (1966). Sociological theories of today. New York and London: Harper e Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willke, H. (1987). Observation, diagnosis, guidance. A system of theoretical view of intervention. In K. Hurrelmann & F.-Z. Kaufmann (Eds.), Social interventions: Potential and constraints (pp. 21–35). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emiliana Mangone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mangone, E. Gratitude and the Relational Theory of Society. Hu Arenas 2, 34–44 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0040-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-018-0040-8

Keywords

Navigation