Radical Relationism: A Proposal

Nation, Ethnicity, Milieus, and Multiple “We’s”. The Case of Kenya

“…This becomes obvious in cases of conflict, in the moment of intransigence that is defined by a fundamental rupture of the whole of society. The relational constitution of we's (and they's) can be explained by referring to the insights of relational social science (Emirbayer 1997;Powell 2013; for African studies: Spies and Seesemann 2016). There are no fixed identities and we's, because they vary according to the social setting and the wider social and political context.…”

Farming from a Process‐Relational Perspective: Making Openings for Change Visible

“…For some perspectives, relations are concrete network ties between individuals or groups, thus the focus is on the interactions between pre‐existing entities. For others, all social phenomena are constituted through relations, thus individuals are not pre‐existing subjects, but themselves configurations of relations (Powell ; Burkitt ; Dépelteau ).…”

“…I build primarily on the latter perspective, specifically a ‘radical relationalism’ (Powell ) or ‘process‐relational’ perspective (Dépelteau ). Dépelteau (, p. 510) defined process‐relational sociology as focusing on ‘the analysis of the emergence, the transformation and the disappearance of multiple smaller and larger dynamic social fields happening through interactions between human and non‐human interactants’.…”

“…While these concepts are all nouns, they should not be mistaken for something that ‘is’, static and unchanging (Elias ; Carolan ). Rather, a relation, a network, an association, an assemblage requires constant work to be maintained, a work that can be done by humans, animals, plants, or objects (Powell ). It would thus be more accurate to use verbs: relating, associating, assembling, networking, interacting, communicating, transforming, practicing, farming.…”

“…Thus, what looks like a stable farm emerges out of multiple, disparate, and often divergent events. Understanding the farm as dynamic allows us to investigate conditions of possibility, de‐essentialising phenomena, treating them as contingencies to be explained, as expression of human and nonhuman agency, as relations that can be investigated historically (Powell ). Importantly, the farmer’s desires and plans are not the only things active in the world, but rather the farmer, the soil, the animals, the machinery are understood as being equally affective, involved in their on‐going becoming (see Anderson and Harrison , p. 11).…”