Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:38:54.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The Promise of Field Theory for the Study of Political Institutions

from I - Theories of Political Sociology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2020

By
Caleb Scoville  and
Neil Fligstein
Edited by
Thomas Janoski ,
Cedric de Leon ,
Joya Misra  and
Isaac William Martin
Thomas Janoski
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Cedric de Leon
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Joya Misra
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Isaac William Martin
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Field theory is a promising and flexible framework for understanding social order and change with broad applicability to the concerns of political sociologists. While many in the subfield are rightly concerned with the relationship between “the state” and civil society, the implicit definition of political sociology as “the sociology of the state” has foreclosed opportunities for understanding how states, markets, firms, nonprofit organizations, and uninstitutionalized politics that include social movements are connected. This chapter presents field theory as a generative approach to understanding political phenomena that moves beyond the limitations of state-based approaches to political sociology, providing opportunities for sharing theoretical insights across subfield boundaries.

Keywords

field theoryinstitutionsstrategic action frameChinaGermanyEnergy
Type
Chapter
Information
The New Handbook of Political Sociology , pp. 79 - 101
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartley, Tim. 2007. “Institutional Emergence in an Era of Globalization: The Rise of Transnational Private Regulation of Labor and Environmental Conditions.” American Journal of Sociology 113(2): 297–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital” pp. 241–258 in Richardson, John G. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. “Social Space and Symbolic Power.” Sociological Theory 7(1): 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre and Wacquant, Loïc. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, Wacquant, Loïc J. D., and Farage, Samar. 1994. “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field.” Sociological Theory 12(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Deng, Yanhua and Yang, Guobin. 2013. “Pollution and Protest in China: Environmental Mobilization in Context.” China Quarterly 214: 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul and Powell, Walter. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
Evans, Peter B. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Rhonda and Kay, Tamara. 2008. “How Environmentalists ‘Greened’ Trade Policy: Strategic Action and the Architecture of Field Overlap.” American Sociological Review 73(6): 970–991.Google Scholar
Fligstein, Neil. 2001a. “Social Skill and the Theory of Fields.” Sociological Theory 19(2): 105–125.Google Scholar
Fligstein, Neil. 2001b. The Architecture of Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, Neil. 2008. “Fields, Power and Social Skill: A Critical Analysis of the New Institutionalisms.” International Public Management Review 9(1): 227–253.Google Scholar
Fligstein, Neil. 2013. “Understanding Stability and Change in Fields.” Research in Organizational Behavior 33: 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, Neil and Doug, McAdam. 2011. “Toward a Theory of Strategic Action Fields.” Sociological Theory 29(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Fligstein, Neil and Doug, McAdam. 2012. A Theory of Fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Gerhard and Hinderer, Nele. 2014. “Sustainable Electricity Transitions in Germany in a Spatial Context: Between Localism and Centralism.” Urban, Planning and Transport Research 2(1): 354–368.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Gerhard and Hinderer, Nele. 2016. “Towards a Low Carbon Future: A Phenomenology of Local Electricity Experiments in Germany.” Journal of Cleaner Production 128: 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kluttz, Daniel N. and Fligstein, Neil. 2016.“Varieties of Sociological Field Theory” pp. 185–204 in Abrutyn, Seth (ed.) Handbook of Contemporary Sociological Theory. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Kungl, Gregor. 2015. “Stewards or Sticklers for Change? Incumbent Energy Providers and the Politics of the German Energy Transition.” Energy Research & Social Science 8(1): 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, Edward and Knoke, David. 1987. The Organizational State. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Lei, Ya-Wen. 2016.“Freeing the Press: How Field Environment Explains Critical News Reporting in China.” American Journal of Sociology 122(1): 1–48.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen. 2010. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen. 2015. Comparative-historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, John Levi. 2003. “What Is Field Theory?” American Journal of Sociology 109(1): 1–49.Google Scholar
Martin, John Levi. 2011. The Explanation of Social Action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug, 1999. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. 2nd ed. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McAdam, Doug, Tarrow, Sidney, and Tilly, Charles. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, Harald. 1972. Field-Theory: A Study of Its Application in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Neukirch, Mario. 2016.“Protests against German Electricity Grid Extension as a New Social Movement? A Journey into the Areas of Conflict.” Energy, Sustainability and Society 6(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Schmid, Eva, Knopf, Brigitte, and Pechan, Anna. 2016. “Putting an Energy System Transformation into Practice: The Case of the German Energiewende.” Energy Research & Social Science 11: 263–275.Google Scholar
Scott, W. Richard. 2013. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1985. “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research” pp. 3–37 in Skocpol, Theda, Evans, Peter B., and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich (eds.) Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strunz, Sebastian. 2014. “The German Energy Transition As a Regime Shift.” Ecological Economics 100: 150–158.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Guobin. 2005. “Environmental NGOs and Institutional Dynamics in China.” China Quarterly 181: 46–66.Google Scholar
Yang, Guobin. 2010. “Brokering Environment and Health in China: Issue Entrepreneurs of the Public Sphere.” Journal of Contemporary China 19(63): 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Guobin and Calhoun, Craig. 2007. “Media, Civil Society, and the Rise of a Green Public Sphere in China.” China Information 21(2): 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×