What Does a ‘Good Life’ Mean in a Morphogenic Society? The Viewpoint of Relational Sociology

  • Pierpaolo DonatiEmail author
Part of the Social Morphogenesis book series (SOCMOR)


The basic argument of this paper is that, under conditions of radical morphogenesis, a good society is feasible only through a peculiar ‘politics of relationality’. The paper analyzes a plurality of normative logics that support different forms of social morphogenesis and, therefore, different moralities of the good life. The differences between the morality of opportunities according to lib/lab logic and relational logic are highlighted. The Author claims that, in a society conceived as a field of opportunities, the discriminating factor of ‘living well’ becomes the relational or non-relational nature of the good that is sought and realized by the acting subjects. It is a matter of clarifying the modalities with which the good life is relationally generated and which relational outcomes follow from it. Human flourishing can be produced only by a ‘society of the human’. This is a society in which the good life coincides with the creation of relational goods through an ‘agonistic sociability’.


Relational sociology Good life Relational goods Relational logic Relational subject lib/lab logic Agonistic sociability 


  1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (1988). Culture and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human. The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2013). Social morphogenesis. Dordrect: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2014). Late Modernity. Trajectories towards morphogenic society. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2015). Generative mechanisms transforming the social order. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Archer, M. S. (2016). Anormative social regulation: An attempt to cope with social morphogenesis. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity: Normogenetic processes. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization. Problematic, hypotheses and research program. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dahrendorf, R. (1994). The changing quality of citizenship. In B. van Steenberger (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 10–19). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deveaux, M. (1999). Agonism and pluralism. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 25(4), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donati, P. (1991). Teoria relazionale della società. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
  15. Donati, P. (2009). La società dell’umano. Genova-Milano: Marietti.Google Scholar
  16. Donati, P. (2013). Morphogenesis and social networks: Relational steering not mechanical feedback. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (pp. 205–231). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donati, P. (2014). Morphogenic society and the structure of social relations. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity. Trajectories towards morphogenic society (pp. 143–172). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Donati, P. (2015). Manifesto for a critical realist relational sociology. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 86–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donati, P., & Archer, M. S. (2015). The relational subject. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donati, P., & Martignani, L. (Eds.). (2015). Towards a new local welfare. Best practices and networks of social inclusion. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Donati, P., & Solci, R. (2011). I beni relazionali. Che cosa sono e quali effetti producono. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  22. Etzioni, A. (2014). The new normal: Finding a balance between individual rights and the common good. New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Fitzi, G. (2012). A ‘transnormative’ view of society building: Simmel’s sociological epistemology and philosophical anthropology of complex societies. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(7/8), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  26. Gulati, R. (2007). Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliation, and other relational assets. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jenks, C. L. (2004). The well-being of social systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(3), 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jindra, M., & Jindra, I. W. (2015). A revolutionary change: Relational work in the new safety net. Notre Dame: Dept. of Anthropology University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  29. Korsgaard, C. (2013). The relational nature of the good. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies on metaethics (Vol. 8). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lasch, C. (1984). The minimal self: Psychic survival in troubled times. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Lazega, E. (2007). Réseaux sociaux et structures relationnelles. Paris: Puf.Google Scholar
  32. Lazega, E., & Pattison, P. E. (2001). Social capital as social mechanisms and collective assets: The example of status auctions among colleagues. In N. Lin, K. Cook, R. S. Burt (Eds.). Social capital: Theory and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, ch. 8.Google Scholar
  33. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Marques, E. (2012). Social networks matter in gaining access to goods and services obtained from outside markets. International Journal of Sociology, 41, 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maxwell, L. (2012). Toward an agonistic understanding of law: Law and politics in Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem. Contemporary Political Theory, 11(1), 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parsons, T. (1977). The evolution of societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Smart, B. (1999). Facing modernity. Ambivalence, reflexivity and morality. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Teubner, G. (2011). A constitutional moment. The logics of ‘hitting the bottom’. In P. Kjaer, G. Teubner, & A. Febbrajo (Eds.), The financial crisis in constitutional perspective: The dark side of functional differentiation (pp. 3–42). Hart: Oxford/Portland.Google Scholar
  39. Uhlaner, C. J. (2014). Relational goods and resolving the paradox of political participation. Recerca. Journal of Thought and Analysis, 14, 47–72.Google Scholar
  40. Wang, P., Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Lazega, E. (2015). Social selection models for multilevel networks. Social Networks, 44, 346–362. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2014.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Business LawUniversità degli Studi di BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations