Abstract
In this chapter, we outline the difference between substantialist and relational understanding of social processes, by utilizing the distinction between self-action, inter-action, and trans-action as it was put forth by John Dewey and Arthur Bentley already in 1949, and used by many since Emirbayer’s classic “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology” in 1997. We distinguish between three understandings of social processes. First, the form of process-reduction of self-actionalism, which reduces processes to their instigators. Second, the form of process-reduction of inter-actionalism, which reifies processes to “things” or “variables.” Third, the processual relational approach of trans-actionalism, which aims to avoid process-reduction as far as possible and sees social processes as constitutive relations among elements. Then we move to the problem of governing wicked problems from the processual relationalist point of view, by analyzing its opposite: the de-problematization of wicked problems, which is, in essence, reducing them to their instigators or just measurable variables (including timelines, implementation plans, development plans, etc.). We also discuss the notion of depoliticization found in governance literature and put forth an essentially semiotic or discursive approach to problematization and de-problematization of wicked problems. Finally, we propose two ideal-typical forms of governance as de-problematization, what we call self-active and inter-active governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The third face is power as preference-shaping: “A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants” (Lukes, 2005, p. 23).
- 2.
We follow here our earlier takes on the issue (see Selg & Ventsel, 2020, ch. 3; Heiskala & Selg, 2021, sect. 8.7.2). For influential general works on governance that through their exposition of the notion either explicitly or implicitly point out that the concept of governance is both analytic—related to how the world is (including how it has changed)—and normative—how things ought to be, see, among others, Fukuyama, 2016; Newman, 2001; Kooiman, 2003; Kooiman & Jentoft, 2009; Bevir & Rhodes, 2006; Bevir, 2010; Torfing et al., 2012; Sorensen & Torfing, 2007, 2009; Sorensen, 2006; Jessop, 2011, 2016, ch. 7).
References
Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory, 6, 169–186.
Abbott, A. (2016). Processual sociology. University of Chicago Press.
Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397–413.
Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton University Press.
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. (2006). Governance stories. Routledge.
Bogason, P., & Zølner, M. (Eds.). (2006). Methods in democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Buller, J., & Flinders, M. (2006). Depoliticisation: Principles, tactics and tools. British Politics, 1(3), 293–318.
Dépelteau, F. (2008). Relational thinking: A critique of co-deterministic theories of structure and agency. Sociological Theory, 26(1), 51–73.
Dépelteau, F. (2013). What is the direction of the “relational turn”? In C. Powell & F. Dépelteau (Eds.), Conceptualizing relational sociology: Ontological and theoretical issues (pp. 163–185). Palgrave Macmillan.
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the known. Beacon Press.
Elias, N. (1978). What is sociology? Columbia University Press.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.
Fawcett, P., Flinders, M. V., Hay, C., & Wood, M. (2017). Anti-politics, depoliticization, and governance. In P. Fawcett, M. V. Flinders, C. Hay, & M. Wood (Eds.), Anti-politics, depoliticization, and governance (pp. 3–27). Oxford University Press.
Fawcett, P., & Wood, M. (2017). Depoliticization, meta-governance, and coal seam gas regulation in New South Wales. In Anti-politics, depoliticization, and governance (pp. 217–241). Oxford University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2016). Governance: What do we know, and how do we know it? Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 89–105.
Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation. Routledge.
Griggs, S., Howarth, D., MacKillop, E., Fawcett, P., Flinders, M., & Hay, C. (2017). The meta-governance of austerity, localism, and practices of depoliticization. In Anti-politics, depoliticization, and governance (pp. 195–217). Oxford University Press.
Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Polity.
Hayward, C. R. (2000). De-facing power. Cambridge University Press.
Heiskala, R., & Selg, P. (2021). Power, regulation, and social order in the intersection of political and social theory. In Handbook of classical sociological theory (pp. 169–192). Springer.
Jackson, P. T., & Nexon, D. H. (1999). Relations before states: Substance, process and the study of world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 5(3), 291–332.
Jenkins, L. (2011). The difference genealogy makes: Strategies for politicisation or how to extend capacities for autonomy. Political Studies, 59(1), 156–174.
Jessop, B. (2011). Metagovernance. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The Sage handbook of governance (pp. 106–123). Sage.
Jessop, B. (2016). The state: past, present, future. Polity.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. Sage.
Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87(4), 818–836.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Landwehr, C. (2017). Depoliticization, repoliticization and deliberative systems. In P. Fawcett et al. (Eds.), Anti-politics, depoliticization, and governance (pp. 49–67). Oxford University Press.
Lee, W. H. (2021). South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and Covid-19. In Covid-19 and governance: Crisis reveals (pp. 29–40). Routledge.
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic governance. New York: Free Press.
Marks, G., & Hooghe, L. (2004). Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 15–29). Oxford University Press.
Meuleman, L. (2008). Public management and the metagovernance of hierarchies, networks and markets: The feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations. Springer Science & Business Media.
Newman, J. (2001). Modernizing governance: New Labour, policy and society. Sage.
Papadopoulos, Y. (2017). Multilevel governance and depoliticization. In Anti-Politics, Depoliticization, and Governance (pp. 134–166). Oxford University Press.
Rescher, N. (2000). Process philosophy: A survey of basic issues. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Rhodes, R. (2017). Network governance and the differentiated polity. Selected essays, volume I. Oxford University Press.
Richardson, K. (2007). Complex systems thinking and its implications for policy analysis. In G. Morcöl (Ed.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 189–221). CRS Press.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Selg, P. (2016). “The fable of the Bs”: Between substantialism and deep relational thinking about power. Journal of Political Power, 9(2), 183–205.
Selg, P. (2018). Power and relational sociology. In F. Dépelteau (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of relational sociology (pp. 539–557). Palgrave Macmillan.
Selg, P. (2020). Causation is not everything: On constitution and trans-actional view of social science methodology. In John Dewey and the notion of trans-action (pp. 31–53). Palgrave Macmillan.
Selg, P., Klasche, B., & Nõgisto, J. (2022). Wicked problems and sociology: Building a missing bridge through processual relationalism. International Review of Sociology, 1–26.
Selg, P., & Ventsel, A. (2020). Introducing relational political analysis: Political semiotics as a theory and method. Palgrave Macmillan.
Selg, P., & Ventsel, A. (2022). Cultural semiotics as the foundation of political semiotics. Social Semiotics (forthcoming).
Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.
Torfing, J., Peters, G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press.
Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 17–50.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Selg, P., Sootla, G., Klasche, B. (2023). From Categorical Distinctions of Policy Problems to a Relational Approach to Wicked Problems. In: A Relational Approach to Governing Wicked Problems. Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24034-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24034-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24033-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24034-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)