The Palgrave Handbook of Relational

Sociology 1st Edition François

Dépelteau (Eds.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-relational-sociology-1st-edi
tion-francois-depelteau-eds/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Palgrave Handbook Of Populism 1st Edition Michael

Oswald

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
populism-1st-edition-michael-oswald/

The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism 1st Edition Carl

Levy

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
anarchism-1st-edition-carl-levy/

The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Labour Studies

1st Edition Nora Räthzel (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
environmental-labour-studies-1st-edition-nora-rathzel-editor/

The Palgrave Handbook of Technological Finance 1st

Edition Raghavendra Rau

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
technological-finance-1st-edition-raghavendra-rau/
The Palgrave Handbook of Social Harm 1st Edition Pamela
Davies

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-social-
harm-1st-edition-pamela-davies/

The Palgrave Handbook of Political Elites 1st Edition

Heinrich Best

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-political-
elites-1st-edition-heinrich-best/

The Palgrave Handbook Of National Security 1st Edition

Michael Clarke

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-national-
security-1st-edition-michael-clarke/

The Palgrave Handbook of Paralympic Studies 1st Edition

Ian Brittain

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
paralympic-studies-1st-edition-ian-brittain/

The Palgrave Handbook of Urban Ethnography 1st Edition

Italo Pardo

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-urban-
ethnography-1st-edition-italo-pardo/
 OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
AD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
MEAD, SERRES, SIMMEL, SOMERS, TARDE, TILLY, LUHMANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,
OURDIEU, COLLINS, DELEUZE, LATOUR, MAUSS, MANN,
WHITE, CROSSLEY, DÉPELTEAU, DONATI, EMIRBAYER, FUHSE,

THE PALGRAVE HANDBOOK

OF RELATIONAL SOCIOLOGY

Edited by
François Dépelteau
The Palgrave Handbook of Relational Sociology
 François Dépelteau
Editor

The Palgrave
Handbook of Relational
Sociology
Editor
François Dépelteau
Laurentian University
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

ISBN 978-3-319-66004-2    ISBN 978-3-319-66005-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66005-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017963365

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
­reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any
other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation,
computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover design by Jenny Vong

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 The Promises of the Relational
Turn in Sociology

The Goals
By publishing handbooks, Palgrave Macmillan’s objective is to provide
overviews of specific fields of research. Those publications are principally for
specialists and students. By and large, these books present the general goals,
approaches, concepts, methods, and past and ongoing researches proper to the
field. It is also expected that these voluminous publications will contribute to
setting the agenda for future developments within the discipline. With these
two ambitious goals in mind, I quickly accepted the invitation to edit a hand-
book of relational sociology.
The timing was too propitious to decline the offer. Indeed, relational think-
ing has spread to other disciplines such as psychology, psychoanalysis, archaeol-
ogy, economics, social work, international relations and political science. There
are texts on risk assessment for suicide, qualitative methods, social theory, the
study of radicalization, emotions, music, football fan clubs, social movements,
family farm resilience, the study of personal decisions and so on. Besides, the
relational turn is made by competent sociologists living in multiple countries.
As we will see in this handbook, it is a rich and diversified field of research
fuelled by various pre-existing approaches and theories. This approach is not
short of internal challenges and it does question some established ideas and
practices in the discipline. It makes this process even more promising. I do not
know if relational sociology will change the discipline in any significant way as
most of its co-producers intend to do. But it could be—or it is becoming—a
precious, valuable space for fundamental and rigorous deliberations in a time
where human beings (still) need to re-evaluate the ways they relate to each
other and to non-human interactants. As a non-relational colleague told me
recently: ‘The world is aflame and we need a better sociology.’ Social life has
always been messy, and I cannot agree more: sociologists can and must do
better, even if they did good work in the past.

v
vi The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology

What is special about relational sociology? As we will see, this book is not a
revolution or a rupture. It will not save the world and does not propose any
utopia beyond the idea that by understanding better we could do better.
Overall, we do not even have one unified and coherent ‘theory’ to propose,
even if many of us are working hard to achieve this goal. What might be special
(but not unique) about relational sociology it that it brings us (back) to funda-
mental dilemmas and issues. This is one of its main characteristics, if not the
most important one in addition to the focus on ‘relations’. We are talking
about questions such as: Should we think in terms of social ‘substances’ or
social processes? Should we rely on dualisms separating objectivism and subjec-
tivism, social structures and agency, or societies and individuals? Should we
give causal powers to social structures over individuals and groups? What about
the importance of non-human interactants in sociological explanations?
This questioning process might be more promising and rich than elsewhere
since these central issues are raised by specialists with different views and influ-
ences. It does not often happen that we find such a group of sociologists work-
ing on a broad and fundamental topic (the study of relations), who come to the
discussion with so many influences and orientations. As we can see with this
handbook, relational sociology is made up of a high number of theoretical
influences, classical and contemporary, from G. Tarde to N. Luhmann. Once
again, this mixture of a general interest for relations and a high diversity of
influences is a fertile soil for fundamental, rich and promising discussions, espe-
cially when competent specialists are willing to play the game. We have some-
thing in common and we have different ideas to bring to the table. We can
compare and test various relational ideas thanks to discussions and empirical
demonstrations. In sum, we try to find the best option(s) we can imagine at
this point in the history of human and rigorous reflexivity on social life.
We are talking about (meta)theoretical questions and issues, not metaphysi-
cal ones. Because it is sociological, this approach is about how we should inter-
pret the characteristics of our (hyper)modern social relations—of our social
lives. Moreover, we are talking about a sociology of relations and social pro-
cesses based, like other sociologies, on rigorous analyses. As usual in social
sciences, this type of reflexivity is justified by the idea that this ‘scientific’
knowledge of social relations can be more accurate—and therefore useful—
than ideological, religious, mythical, traditional or common-sense knowledge.
What I briefly described above partly reflects ongoing processes within rela-
tional sociology, and partly stems from intellectual aspirations. Evidently, there
are different paths we can follow in a near future as relational sociologists. We
can all develop and diffuse our own version of relational sociology, following
our own influences, interests and inspiration. This is the hyper-individualistic
route. Some will be more successful than others when adding to their list of
citations and becoming recognized in the field, and maybe outside of it. In this
line of argument, relational sociology is another highly fragmented intellectual
constellation of heterogeneous research by individual, with little discussion
between them.
 The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology
   vii

As a collective, we could also be satisfied by establishing relational sociology

as a theory and a set of methods used by other scholars and graduate students.
In this view, relational sociology becomes another non-Kuhnian or non-­
hegemonic ‘paradigm’ competing with other ‘paradigms’ in sociology. Maybe
this is what relational sociology is becoming. If this is what we are doing, we
are contributing to what J. Turner (2001, 1) called the ‘hyperdifferentiation of
theories’ in the discipline. We compete ‘for an attention space’. In fact, we cre-
ate our own space (or a relatively ‘close’ field) without any significant discus-
sion with non-relational colleagues. Rather than trying to improve sociology
overall, we add another ‘paradigm’ or another theory by doing what we have
done in the last years in relational sociology: publishing a handbook, creating
a new book series, being on editorial boards of journals, publishing books and
articles, organizing sessions in congresses, creating new relational courses and
so on. This common practice in contemporary sociology might be rewarding
at the individual level and for specific groups, but it comes with a high price for
the discipline. As J. Turner (2001, 1–2) said:

One of the effects of hyperdifferentiation is that many new resources niches

are created, allowing scholars and their students to operate without having to
justify their importance vis-à-vis other theories, and this is especially so as
sociological theory has abandoned the requirement that it be tested against
empirical facts.

I think J. Turner exaggerated to make his point. Sociologists constantly test

or support their theory with plenty of data. The typical problem is more that
few sociologists compare the value of their ‘facts’ with ‘facts’ produce by other
theories. In this way, we all ‘corroborate’ our theories and, therefore, contrib-
ute to the hyper-differentiation condemned by J. Turner in his first chapter of
the Handbook of Sociological Theory. Turner’s critique should, perhaps, be taken
seriously. These individualistic and ‘paradigmatic’ routes produce negative
unintended effects overall, such as: a surplus of controversy (or noise for non-
specialists), indifference towards other approaches, and(or) a lack of discipline
and unity (an anomic sociology). At the end of the day, we face the disinterest
of people within and outside sociology. It is seen as ‘just another theory’.
Sociologists end up without any significant ‘public’ outside their little group of
colleagues and classrooms:

Indeed, the diversity of approaches has led to a smug cynicism about the pros-
pects of theory being anything more than texts produced by people who call
themselves sociologists and who, for many, should not have a privileged voice.
(Ibid. 2001, 2)

Sociology is now so diverse that it is difficult to see any unity ever emerging.
Sociologists do not agree on what is real, what our core problems are, what our
epistemology is, and what our theories should look like. (Ibid. 2001, 14)
viii The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology

Some perspectives overlap and/or draw upon similar traditions, but most go their
own way, defining problems and performing analysis without great regard for the
whole of activity that constitutes theory today. (Ibid. 2001, 14)

But if we are simply a discipline housed in the tower of babel (and babble), sociol-
ogy will remain a weak discipline, operating at the fringes of academic and public
life. Only with some degree of theoretical unity—on epistemology and prob-
lems—will sociology become an important discipline. (Ibid. 2001, 15)

I am probably more ‘liberal’ than Turner—if ‘liberal’ is the right word

here. I am not looking for any Kuhnian paradigm. The last thing we need is a
hegemonic theory which could maybe make us look more ‘legitimate’ to the
eyes of rulers of universities and governments, but which could also hurt soci-
ology by killing the necessary controversies we need to study our complex
social life more efficiently. My proposal is to move beyond the status quo
thanks to the creation of new spaces of productive discussions on fundamental
principles and issues. The emergence of relational sociology offers this
opportunity. This is fundamentally why I was interested in editing this hand-
book. I see it as one event in a chain of interactions leading to the reinforce-
ment of one open intellectual field where sociologists focus on relations to
explain social phenomena.
Relational sociology is thus becoming a sort of inclusive space of delibera-
tion over fundamental issues in sociology; a space co-produced by competent
colleagues sharing a general interest in the study of social relations, and bring-
ing different theoretical and methodological orientations. This mixture of one
general interest, competency and diversity is a good recipe for such an intel-
lectual movement. We could end up having a great balance between discipline
and controversy, especially if a significant number of relational sociologists are
looking for a movement of this kind.
In effect, like other social movements, the intellectual ones are spaces of
creation and diffusion of ‘new’ ideas and related practices emerging from indi-
viduals sharing some identities and interests. Those are social processes which
are kept alive through ongoing interactions between the co-producers.
Concretely speaking, we are referring to sub-processes like the creations of
organizations, mobilizations of resources, publications of texts, discussions in
congresses and so on.
It is simply up to us to orient the coming interactions in one way or another.
Once more, we have at least three ideal-typical options: (1) individualistic pro-
ductions of relational theories and demonstrations; (2) the creation of another
‘paradigm’, which also fuels a larger process of hyper-differentiation of theo-
ries; or (3) the conscious co-production of a relational movement within soci-
ology energized by a mixture of controversy and discipline.
 The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology
   ix

The Origins
Beyond these general goals, this handbook can be better understood if we
know a little about its genealogy. To make a long story short, the field of rela-
tional sociology started many years ago thanks to the works of founders such as
P. Donati and M. Emirbayer in the 1980s and 1990s. Having said this, this
handbook comes from a more specific chain of interactions—a sub-process
within a larger process—which emerged later, in Canada, around 2013 or
2014. One interaction leading to another, this network became quickly inter-
national thanks to the episodic participation of colleagues such as N. Crossley,
P. Donati, E. Erikson, J. Fontdevila, J. Fuhse, D. Silver and many others.
The ‘beginning’ of this sub-process was the creation of a research cluster of
relational sociology established with my colleague Jean-Sébastien Guy, and
thanks to the support of the Canadian Sociological Association (CSA) (see
http://www.csa-scs.ca/files/webapps/csapress/relational/). This only took
place a few years ago. Jean-Sébastien and I met by drinking beers at night dur-
ing the congresses of the same association, after presenting at the newly created
annual sessions of relational sociology. Very quickly, many colleagues joined
this economically poor network (total money invested to date: 0). Please note
that P. Donati also created a network of colleagues interested by relational soci-
ology in Italia called Relational Studies in Sociology (http://www.relational-
studies.net). Like everything else, the emergence of relational sociology is the
outcome of multiple and decentralized associations or ‘assemblages’.
The research cluster through the CSA rapidly set in motion new connec-
tions and projects. It allowed people who did not know each other to work
together through virtual relations or face-to-face interactions. For example,
in 2015, Jan Fuhse, myself and other colleagues had informal discussions
on Google on issues related to relational sociology. These discussions lasted for
more or less two months. Thanks to the offer of Dan Silver, these discussions
were edited and published in the Newsletter of the Research Committee on
Sociological Theory (summer 2015) of the International Sociological Associ­
ation, under the title: ‘Invitation to an Ongoing Experiment: Discussing What
Relational Sociology Is’. These discussions will not change sociology as we
know it, but showed that we can achieve more than individual publications.
Another example: Peeter Selg (from Estonia) came to Calgary to the congress
of the CSA to talk about relational sociology during the day and drink beers
with us at night. Due to his enthusiasm and competency (for relational
thinking), Peeter joined us as a ‘co-manager’ of the research cluster. Estonia
became ‘officially’ integrated to the network. It will not bother V. Putin and
his hegemonic aspirations, but it made the network broader and richer and
the movement even more promising. Nothing was really planned. Just one
interaction leading to another. Today, there are more than 120 colleagues
from 25 countries in this network. It is still growing.
x The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology

Each action fuels the movement, even when there is no coordination or

direct connection. In the early days of this process, not so long after the pub-
lications of the books of Pierpaolo Donati and Nick Crossley on relational
sociology (with Routledge), I co-edited two volumes on relational sociology
in 2013 (with C. Powell). The publication of these volumes puts us in touch
with many competent relational colleagues—including Donati and Crossley—
who have developed various types of relational sociologies. We stayed in con-
tact through virtual means and many of them are authors of chapters in this
handbook.
In 2015, I met Frédéric Vandenberghe in Rio de Janeiro. It did not take me
long to notice Frédéric’s great knowledge of social theory and his general
interest in relational thinking. He kindly invited me to present relational sociol-
ogy to his graduate students in Rio. His help to find more competent col-
leagues (Christian Papilloud and Jean-François Côté, for example) for this
handbook was very useful.
Networking is exponential, especially when the network is open. In 2016,
with our colleague Gabriel Cohn, Frédéric and I co-organized a session on
relational sociology at the Anual da Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduaçã e
Pesquisa em Ciências Sociais (ANPOCS) in Caxambu, a small town located
far, far away, in the middle of nowhere in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
The ANPOCS is the ‘place to be’ for Brazilian sociologists. For most or all
of them, it was the first time they had been exposed to this type of sociology.
I did not know what to expect. It turned out that many of them were highly
interested by this perspective. The international networking continued to
grow, often by ‘accident’. In Caxambu, we had the chance to meet Philippe
Steiner from the Université La Sorbonne, who told us he was writing a
French book on relational sociology. It was also a discovery to see there is
some emerging interest for this sociology in France, outside of Pierre
Bourdieu’s circles and after the initial attempts made by Guy Bajoit and
Philippe Corcuff in the 1990s.
Shortly before the (long) trip to Caxambu, a new book series on relational
sociology was created (called the Palgrave Studies in Relational Sociology:
http://www.palgrave.com/it/series/15100). Palgrave Macmillan has been
very supportive of our uncoordinated actions. It does help a lot too. In big part
thanks to the research cluster, we quickly got several promising projects and
manuscripts for this new book series, once again coming from competent col-
leagues from different countries. Some of them, such as Sergio Tonkonoff
(Argentina) and Christian Papilloud (Germany), also wrote chapters for this
handbook.
Thanks to the invitation of Chiara Piazzesi (a new member of the research
cluster), who introduced relational sociology to her graduate students, there
was also a presentation on relational sociology at the Université du Québec à
Montréal in 2016. My PowerPoint presentation was pretty much useless. After
 The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology
   xi

20 minutes, the ‘lecture’ became a lively and interesting three-hour discussion.

I was happily surprised again since relational sociology is relatively unknown in
Québec. I rarely saw colleagues and students being so engaged by what I had
to say, and it is not because I was a great speaker. Some participants openly (and
respectfully) disagreed with my views on social life, but there was clearly a
strong interest towards this kind of fundamental discussion. I could multiply
the little stories but the main idea is simple: it seems the timing is good for a
relational turn (and movement) the way it is presented here.
This is an international and open process. Again, the network I briefly pre-
sented is just one sub-process. Relational sociology has appeared in Italia around
Pierpaolo Donati; in the USA after the ‘relational manifesto’ published by
Mustafa Emirbayer in 1997 and the works of Charles Tilly, Harrison White, Ann
Mische and network analysts (just examples); in Australia thanks to the work
and the network of Scott Eacott and the recent work of I. Darnhofer; in
Scandinavian states thanks to Olli Pyyhtinen, Chares Demetriou, O. Kivinen
and T. Piironen; in Germany with the work of Jan Fuhse and more recently
Christian Papilloud; in Great Britain thanks to its association with critical realism
(see the work of M. Archer and Douglas Porpora) and the works of Nick
Crossley, Ian Burkitt, Paul Widdop, Sarah Hillcoat-Nallétamby and others; in
Argentina with the publications of Sergio Tonkonoff; in Estonia thanks to
Peeter Selg and his graduate students; in Canada with Andrea Doucet,
G. Veenstra, Jean-Sébastien Guy, C. Powell, myself and several others. All of this
and the positive experiences in Caxambu and Montréal showed that relational
sociology is growing and that it could emerge where it is relatively unknown.
I suspect not all the authors in this handbook share my vision of relational
sociology as an intellectual movement. Whatever their motive is, they are the
co-producers of this publication. It was a pleasure and a humbling experience
to work with these competent colleagues. I did very little in terms of editing,
limiting myself to general comments and suggestions they could ignore very
easily. Many of them helped me very generously with some parts of Chap. 1.
Again, I do not know how they see the future of relational sociology but this
group of people is a great asset for sociology. It is my hope that more compe-
tent and open colleagues will be included in the coming years and be involved
in future projects.

Configuration of the Handbook

I do not think it is necessary to describe all the chapters of this handbook.
Readers can find abstracts on the Palgrave Macmillan website. It might be
more beneficial to pay attention to the various sections of this book. Indeed, its
configuration is a source of information about what relational sociology is and
what it could become.
It goes without saying that one can organize the same texts in different
ways. I have tried to ‘interact’ with those texts. I did not want to force them to
fit into my ‘plan’, even if, obviously, another editor would had come with a
xii The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology

different make-up. It might look a little bit esoteric, but I tried to listen to the
texts, their themes and influences, to see them as ‘interactants’ and work out
how they could connect and oppose to each other, how they could relate, if
they would be left on their own, so to speak. Of course, the configuration did
not come from the sky or the texts themselves. Hopefully, it was found at the
crossroad where the editor and the texts met—or something like that.
Thanks to each collaborator and the assemblage of their chapters, I think this
handbook opens, expands and therefore improves relational sociology by pre-
senting its origins, multiple approaches, various theoretical influences, diverse
concepts and methods (or the need for more work in terms of relational meth-
ods). As noted, the chapters and their assemblage can also help us to ‘set the
agenda for future developments’ within (relational) sociology. Ironically maybe,
this assemblage of chapters might be a good example of what relational sociolo-
gists are trying to explain beyond all the differences and disagreements. A new
interactant—the handbook—emerged from the writing, the assemblage and
publication of distinct but related texts. The interactions between the handbook
and its future readers will become other events prolonging the chains of interac-
tions which have made relational sociology. Hopefully, some relational ‘goods’
will come out from this process, within and outside of sociology.
What do we find in this book? Part I is short (only two chapters, one by
Vandenberghe and the other by myself), but they both give the tone to the
whole project even if, once again, we were not coordinated (each chapter was
written without any consultation). We offer two different general presentations
of relational sociology in many ways. Frédéric is influenced by critical realism.
I am too, but in opposition to it in many ways. However, we both focused on
important characteristics of relational sociology, a central one being its great
diversity in terms of theoretical influences and worldviews. I will not go into
the details of any of these chapters in this Introduction, but I would like to
insist on one important aspect of Vandenberghe’s chapter. He proposed some
general ideas to help us to move beyond some great divides in relational sociol-
ogy. I think his general ideas should be discussed at length; and more impor-
tant perhaps, we should be inspired by this type of approach where fundamental
differences are put on the table by the author, and where ideas are proposed to
start discussion between colleagues with different backgrounds and views.
The aim is not to give the ‘right’ to colleagues to express their views in some
weird post-modern or identity politics logic. Rather, it is to open up a space of
sociological deliberation where different and rigorously developed relational
views are expressed to be discussed, compared and evaluated according to their
capacity to improve our understanding of social processes and relations.
Part II not only provides a good illustration of the richness and diversity of
relational sociology. It also distinguishes three grand ‘families’ of influences in
relational sociology. More precisely, it identifies three ‘families’ of approaches
and theories associated to relational sociology and used by relational sociolo-
gists in one way or another. These types of influence are important foundations
of relational sociology.
 The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology
   xiii

Section A of Part II presents chapters showing the connections between

relational sociology and Gabriel Tarde (Tonkonoff), the debate between Tarde
and Emile Durkheim (Toews), G. H. Mead (Côté), pragmatism (Kivinen and
Piiroinen), G. Deleuze (Lenco), Michel Serres (Pyyhtinen) and Bruno Latour
(Papilloud). Generally speaking, it is from these sources that come the most
‘processual’ and anti-‘substantialist’ productions in relational sociology.
Section B of Part II presents connections between relational sociology and
the study of social forms, system theories and network analysis. We could be
tempted to say that we are dealing with the ‘structuralist’ sources of inspira-
tion of relational sociology. It is partly true, but this is not so simple, as we
can see by reading these chapters. Here, we have chapters on Georg Simmel
(one from Papilloud and one from Cantó-Milà), Harrison White (Fontdevila),
network analysis (Erikson) and Niklas Luhmann (Guy).
Section C, the final section of Part II, is composed of approaches or theo-
ries associated with relational sociology and focusing mostly on power rela-
tions, inequalities and conflicts. There are chapters on Charles Tilly (Demetriou),
Michael Mann (Saarts and Selg), Pierre Bourdieu (Papilloud and Schultze),
post-colonial theory (Go) and feminism and ecological thinking (Doucet).
Part III of the handbook presents some of the most active or visible contem-
porary relational sociologists. There are chapters on Mustafa Emirbayer (by
Liang and Liu) and Pierpaolo Donati (by himself). Fuhse, Crossley and I also
present the main ideas of our respective versions of relational sociology. Porpora
presents critical realism as a relational sociology. Readers should be able to con-
nect these contemporary relational works to the three ‘families’ of Part II:
Fuhse to White and network analysis, Emirbayer to Bourdieu (among others)
and myself to the first ‘family’. Crossley seems to be more eclectic, even if I
think his chapter is close to the first ‘family’ in many ways. But maybe this is
wishful thinking on my part. Overall, I think his work (with the approach of
Charles Tilly as it presented by Demetriou in this handbook, and Vandenberghe’s
chapter, among others) could be used as a good starting point for discussions
involving people with different views and influences. I can see potential bridges
emerging from serious discussions on and beyond this kind of work.
Part IV shows how relational sociology can be applied to specific concepts or
empirical processes, once again in various ways. We have texts presenting rela-
tional views on agency (Burkitt), power (Selg), radicalization (Demetriou and
Alimi), the ‘meaning-making of riots’ (Morgner), music (Crossley), residential
relocation decisions in later life (Hillcoat-Nallétamby), leadership and educa-
tion (Eacott), and Marcel Mauss and the phenomenon of the gift (Papilloud).
The last chapter, on Marcel Mauss, could have been inserted into the second
section, but it did not fit well with any of the three ‘families’ (to my eyes at
least). This is a good example of how careful we should be with any mapping
work: it is always illuminating and reductive at the same time. The work I did
here is no exception. I hope it will be improved by other colleagues.
Evidently, this handbook is not the bible of relational sociology. It is a spe-
cific selection of texts representing quite well, I would dare to say, what
xiv The Promises of the Relational Turn in Sociology

r­elational sociology is these days. It is also an invitation to read more about

relational sociology, and to do research. Interested readers will find many other
texts from the collaborators of this handbook on similar or different topics, and
from other relational colleagues we do not find here, even if most of them are
cited in one chapter or another.
This handbook also shows some of the most important limits of relational
sociology. For example, there is no chapter on research methods and relational
sociology. This is the kind of void which should be filled in the coming years,
if this sociological approach is to improve.
It is to be hoped that this publication will incite more people to co-produce
work on relational sociology as an intellectual movement which could improve
our understanding of our social life and universe. If any reader is interested in
contributing, or even just watching it more closely, they are invited to contact
Peeter Selg, Jean-Sébastien Guy or myself by email. One of us will add you to
the list of members of the research cluster, you will be kept informed about
coming projects and invited to participate.
I cannot finish this Introduction without noting again the marvellous
opportunity this volume has provided working with such highly competent
colleagues. If the quality of an approach or an intellectual movement has any-
thing to do with the quality of its co-producers (and it obviously does), rela-
tional sociology could be a fertile social field.

François Dépelteau

Reference
Turner, J. 2001. Sociological Theory Today. In Handbook of Sociological Theory, ed. J.
Turner, 1–20. New York: Kluwer Academics\Plenum Publishers.
 Contents

Part I General Presentations of Relational Sociology   1

1 Relational Thinking in Sociology: Relevance, Concurrence

and Dissonance   3
François Dépelteau

2 The Relation as Magical Operator: Overcoming the Divide

Between Relational and Processual Sociology  35
Frédéric Vandenberghe

Part II Approaches and Theories Associated with Relational

Sociology  59

Section A Pragmatism, Interactions and ‘Assemblages’ 61

3 Sociology of Infinitesimal Difference. Gabriel Tarde’s

Heritage  63
Sergio Tonkonoff

4 Pluralism and Relationalism in Social Theory: Lessons

from the Tarde–Durkheim Debate  85
David Toews

5 G.H. Mead and Relational Sociology: The Case of Concepts 101

Jean-François Côté

xv
xvi Contents

6 Pragmatist Methodological Relationalism in Sociological

Understanding of Evolving Human Culture 119
Osmo Kivinen and Tero Piiroinen

7 Deleuze and Relational Sociology 143

Peter Lenco

8 Triangular Relations 161
Olli Pyyhtinen

9 Bruno Latour and Relational Sociology 183

Christian Papilloud

Section B Social Forms, System Theories and Network Analysis 199

10 Georg Simmel and Relational Sociology 201

Christian Papilloud

11 Georg Simmel’s Concept of Forms of Association

as an Analytical Tool for Relational Sociology 217
Natàlia Cantó-Milà

12 Switchings Among Netdoms: The Relational Sociology

of Harrison C. White 231
Jorge Fontdevila

13 Relationalism and Social Networks 271

Emily Erikson

14 Is Niklas Luhmann a Relational Sociologist? 289

Jean-Sébastien Guy

Section C Power Relations, Inequalities and Conflicts 305

15 Charles Tilly and Relational Sociology 307

Chares Demetriou
 Contents 
   xvii

16 Mann and Relational Sociology 325

Tõnis Saarts and Peeter Selg

17 Pierre Bourdieu and Relational Sociology 343

Christian Papilloud and Eva-Maria Schultze

18 Relational Sociology and Postcolonial Theory: Sketches

of a “Postcolonial Relationalism” 357
Julian Go

19 Shorelines, Seashells, and Seeds: Feminist Epistemologies,

Ecological Thinking, and Relational Ontologies 375
Andrea Doucet

Part III Main Current Approaches in Relational Sociology 393

20 Beyond the Manifesto: Mustafa Emirbayer and Relational

Sociology 395
Lily Liang and Sida Liu

21 Critical Realism as Relational Sociology 413

Douglas V. Porpora

22 An Original Relational Sociology Grounded in Critical

Realism 431
Pierpaolo Donati

23 Deconstructing and Reconstructing Social Networks 457

Jan A. Fuhse

24 Networks, Interactions and Relations 481

Nick Crossley

25 From the Concept of ‘Trans-Action’ to a Process-Relational

Sociology 499
François Dépelteau
xviii Contents

Part IV Specific Issues and Concepts in Relational Sociology 521

26 Relational Agency 523
Ian Burkitt

27 Power and Relational Sociology 539

Peeter Selg

28 Relational Radicalization 559
Chares Demetriou and Eitan Y. Alimi

29 The Relational Meaning-Making of Riots: Narrative Logic

and Network Performance of the London “Riots” 579
Christian Morgner

30 Music Sociology in Relational Perspective 601

Nick Crossley

31 Relational Sociology: Contributions to Understanding

Residential Relocation Decisions in Later Life 621
Sarah Hillcoat-Nallétamby

32 Relations, Organising, Leadership and Education 641

Scott Eacott

33 Marcel Mauss, the Gift and Relational Sociology 663

Christian Papilloud

Index677
 List of Figures

Fig. 13.1 Network of captain-to-captain ties 274

Fig. 13.2 Directed triadic configurations 277
Fig. 16.1 Mann’s approach to power: an interpretation from the perspective
of relational sociology. Source: authors’ own 334
Fig. 16.2 An empirical example: the emergence of iron tools and weaponry
and its social consequences on power relations. Source: authors’ own 336
Fig. 23.1 Duality of communicative events and social structures 463
Fig. 24.1 The UK Two-Tone music world 494
Fig. 25.1 Worldviews, principles, concepts, methods and observations 510
Fig. 25.2 Characteristics and dimensions of interactions and actions 512
Fig. 29.1 Recorded crimes related to the events by target/victim.
Source: Home Office, October 2011, n = 5326 587
Fig. 29.2 Types of commercial premises targeted in the events.
Source: Home Office, October 2011, n = 2278 592
Fig. 29.3 Types of commercial premises targeted in the events
(detailed version). Source: Home, Office, October 2011, n = 1457
(the list excludes general categories such as “other premises” and
percentages smaller than 4%) 593
Fig. 30.1 The Sheffield punk/post-punk world 613
Fig. 31.1 Dominant conceptualisation of residential relocation transitions 625
Fig. 31.2 Relational conceptualisation of the RRDM process 625
Fig. 31.3 Relational conceptualisation of the later life RRDM process 635
Fig. 32.1 Relational approaches to organisational theory 646

xix
 List of Tables

Table 22.1 The basic differences between a realist relational sociology

and radical relationist sociologies 447
Table 29.1 Criminal histories of suspects involved in public disorder
between August 6 and 9, 2011 589
Table 29.2 Criminal histories of all offenders who received a reprimand,
warning, caution or sentence for an indictable offense in the
twelve months leading to the end of March 2011 in London 589

xxi
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Section four provides that, for the special purpose of paying the
principal and interest of the public debt, and of supporting the
Government, a war tax shall be assessed and levied of fifty cents
upon each one hundred dollars in value of the following property in
the Confederate States, namely: Real estate of all kinds; slaves;
merchandise; bank stocks; railroad and other corporation stocks;
money at interest or invested by individuals in the purchase of bills,
notes, and other securities for money, except the bonds of the
Confederate States of America, and cash on hand or on deposit in
bank or elsewhere; cattle, horses, and mules; gold watches, gold and
silver plate; pianos and pleasure carriages: Provided, however, That
when the taxable property, herein above enumerated, of any head of
a family is of value less than five hundred dollars, such taxable
property shall be exempt from taxation under this act. It provides
further that the property of colleges, schools, and religious
associations shall be exempt.
The remaining sections provide for the collection of the tax.

THE TAX ACT OF DECEMBER 19, 1861.

An act supplementary to an act to authorize the issue of Treasury

notes, and to provide a war tax for their redemption.
Sec. 1. The Congress of the Confederate States of America do
enact, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to pay
over to the several banks, which have made advances to the
Government, in anticipation of the issue of Treasury notes, a
sufficient amount, not exceeding $10,000,000, for the principal and
interest due upon the said advance, according to the engagements
made with them.
Sec. 2. The time affixed by the said act for making assignments is
hereby extended to the 1st day of January next, and the time for the
completion and delivery of the lists is extended to the 1st day of
March next, and the time for the report of the said lists to the chief
collector is extended to the 1st day of May next; and in cases where
the time thus fixed shall be found insufficient, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall have power to make further extension, as
circumstances may require.
 Sec. 3. The cash on hand, or on deposit in the bank, or elsewhere,
mentioned in the fourth section of said act, is hereby declared to be
subject to assessment and taxation, and the money at interest, or
invested by individuals in the purchase of bills, notes, and other
securities for money, shall be deemed to include securities for money
belonging to non-residents, and such securities shall be returned,
and the tax thereon paid by any agent or trustee having the same in
possession or under his control. The term merchandise shall be
construed to include merchandise belonging to any non-resident,
and the property shall be returned, and the tax paid by any person
having the same in possession as agent, attorney, or consignee:
Provided, That the words “money at interest,” as used in the act to
which this act is an amendment, shall be so construed as to include
all notes, or other evidences of debt, bearing interest, without
reference to the consideration of the same. The exception allowed by
the twentieth section for agricultural products shall be construed to
embrace such products only when in the hands of the producer, or
held for his account. But no tax shall be assessed or levied on any
money at interest when the notes, bond, bill, or other security taken
for its payment, shall be worthless from the insolvency and total
inability to pay of the payer or obligor, or person liable to make such
payment; and all securities for money payable under this act shall be
assessed according to their value, and the assessor shall have the
same power to ascertain the value of such securities as the law
confers upon him with respect to other property.
Sec. 4. That an amount of money, not exceeding $25,000, shall be
and the same is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the
treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be disbursed under the
authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, to the chief State tax
collectors, for such expenses as shall be actually incurred for salaries
of clerks, office hire, stationery, and incidental charges; but the
books and printing required shall be at the expense of the
department, and subject to its approval.
Sec. 5. The lien for the tax shall attach from the date of the
assessment, and shall follow the same into every State in the
Confederacy; and in case any person shall attempt to remove any
property which may be liable to tax, beyond the jurisdiction of the
State in which the tax is payable, without payment of the tax, the
collector of the district may distrain upon and sell the same, in the
same manner as is provided in cases where default is made in the
payment of the tax.
Sec. 6. On the report of any chief collector, that any county, town
or district, or any part thereof, is occupied by the public enemy, or
has been so occupied as to occasion destruction of crops or property,
the Secretary of the Treasury may suspend the collection of tax in
such region until the same can be reported to Congress, and its
action had thereon.
Sec. 7. In case any of the Confederate States shall undertake to pay
the tax to be collected within its limits before the time at which the
district collectors shall enter upon the discharge of their duties, the
Secretary of the Treasury may suspend the appointment of such
collectors, and may direct the chief collector to appoint assessors,
and to take proper measures for the making and perfecting the
returns, assessments and lists required by law; and the returns,
assessments and lists so made, shall have the same legal validity, to
all intents and purposes, as if made according to the provisions of the
act to which this act is supplementary.
Sec. 8. That tax lists already given, varying from the provisions of
this act, shall be corrected so as to conform thereto.

THE TAX ACT OF APRIL 24, 1863.

[From the Richmond Whig, April 21.]

We present below a synopsis of the bill to lay taxes for the common
defence and to carry on the government of the Confederate States,
which has passed both branches of Congress. It is substantially the
bill proposed by the committee on conference:
1. The first section imposes a tax of eight per cent. upon the value
of all naval stores, salt, wines and spirituous liquors, tobacco,
manufactured or unmanufactured, cotton, wool, flour, sugar,
molasses, syrup, rice, and other agricultural products, held or owned
on the 1st day of July next, and not necessary for family consumption
for the unexpired portion of the year 1863, and of the growth or
production of any year preceding the year 1863; and a tax of one per
cent. upon all moneys, bank notes or other currency on hand or on
deposit on the 1st day of July next, and on the value of all credits on
which the interest has not been paid, and not employed in a
business, the income derived from which is taxed under the
provisions of this act: Provided, That all moneys owned, held or
deposited beyond the limits of the Confederate States shall be valued
at the current rate of exchange in Confederate treasury notes. The tax
to be assessed on the first day of July and collected on the first day of
October next, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable.
2. Every person engaged, or intending to engage, in any business
named in the fifth section, shall, within sixty days after the passage
of the act, or at the time of beginning business, and on the first of
January in each year thereafter, register with the district collector a
true account of the name and residence of each person, firm, or
corporation engaged or interested in the business, with a statement
of the time for which, and the place and manner in which the same is
to be conducted, &c. At the time of the registry there shall be paid the
specific tax for the year ending on the next 31st of December, and
such other tax as may be due upon sales or receipts in such business.
3. Any person failing to make such registry and pay such tax, shall,
in addition to all other taxes upon his business imposed by the act,
pay double the amount of the specific tax on such business, and a like
sum for every thirty days of such failure.
4. Requires a separate registry and tax for each business
mentioned in the fifth section, and for each place of conducting the
same; but no tax for mere storage of goods at a place other than the
registered place of business. A new registry required upon every
change in the place of conducting a registered business, upon the
death of any person conducting the same, or upon the transfer of the
business to another, but no additional tax.
5. Imposing the following taxes for the year ending 31st of
December, 1863, and for each year thereafter:
Bankers shall pay $500.
Auctioneers, retail dealers, tobacconists, pedlers, cattle brokers,
apothecaries, photographers, and confectioners, $50, and two and a
half per centum on the gross amount of sales made.
Wholesale dealers in liquors, $200, and five per centum on gross
amount of sales. Retail dealers in liquors, $100, and ten per centum
on gross amount of sales.
Wholesale dealers in groceries, goods, wares, merchandise, &c.,
$200, and two and a half per centum.
Pawnbrokers, money and exchange brokers, $200.
Distillers, $200, and twenty per centum. Brewers, $100, and two
and a half per centum.
Hotels, inns, taverns, and eating-houses, first class, $500; second
class, $300; third class, $200; fourth class, $100; fifth class, $30.
Every house where food or refreshments are sold, and every
boarding house where there shall be six boarders or more, shall be
deemed an eating house under this act.
Commercial brokers or commission merchants, $200, and two and
a half per centum.
Theatres, $500, and five per centum on all receipts. Each circus,
$100, and $10 for each exhibition. Jugglers and other persons
exhibiting shows, $50.
Bowling alleys and billiard rooms, $40 for each alley or table
registered.
Livery stable keepers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and dentists,
$50.
Butchers and bakers, $50, and one per centum.
6. Every person registered and taxed is required to make returns of
the gross amount of sales from the passage of the act to the 30th of
June, and every three months thereafter.
7. A tax upon all salaries, except of persons in the military or naval
service, of one per cent. when not exceeding $1,500, and two per
cent. upon an excess over that amount: Provided, That no taxes shall
be imposed by virtue of this act on the salary of any person receiving
a salary not exceeding $1,000 per annum, or at a like rate for another
period of time, longer or shorter.
8. Provides that the tax on annual incomes, between $500 and
$1,500, shall be five per cent.; between $1,500 and $3,000, five per
cent. on the first $1,500 and ten per cent. on the excess; between
$3,000 and $5,000, ten per cent.; between $5,000 and $10,000,
twelve and a half per cent.; over $10,000, fifteen per cent., subject to
the following deductions: On incomes derived from rents of real
estate, manufacturing, and mining establishments, &c., a sum
sufficient for necessary annual repairs; on incomes from any mining
or manufacturing business, the rent, (if rented,) cost of labor actually
hired, and raw material; on incomes from navigating enterprises, the
hire of the vessel, or allowance for wear and tear of the same, not
exceeding ten per cent.; on incomes derived from the sale of
merchandise or any other property, the prime cost of transportation,
salaries of clerks, and rent of buildings; on incomes from any other
occupation, the salaries of clerks, rent, cost of labor, material, &c.;
and in case of mutual insurance companies, the amount of losses
paid by them during the year. Incomes derived from other sources
are subject to no deductions whatever.
All joint stock companies and corporations shall pay one tenth of
the dividend and reserved fund annually. If the annual earnings shall
give a profit of more than ten and less than twenty per cent. on
capital stock, one eighth to be paid; if more than twenty per cent.,
one sixth. The tax to be collected on the 1st of January next, and of
each year thereafter.
9. Relates to estimates and deductions, investigations, referees, &c.
10. A tax of ten per cent. on all profits in 1862 by the purchase and
sale of flour, corn, bacon, pork, oats, hay, rice, salt, iron or the
manufactures of iron, sugar, molasses made of cane, butter, woolen
cloths, shoes, boots, blankets, and cotton cloths. Does not apply to
regular retail business.
11. Each farmer, after reserving for his own use fifty bushels sweet
and fifty bushels Irish potatoes, one hundred bushels corn or fifty
bushels wheat produced this year, shall pay and deliver to the
Confederate Government one tenth of the grain, potatoes, forage,
sugar, molasses, cotton, wool, and tobacco produced. After reserving
twenty bushels peas or beans he shall deliver one tenth thereof.
12. Every farmer, planter, or grazier, one tenth of the hogs
slaughtered by him, in cured bacon, at the rate of sixty pounds of
bacon to one hundred pounds of pork; one per cent. upon the value
of all meat cattle, horses, mules, not used in cultivation, and asses, to
be paid by the owners of the same; beeves sold to be taxed as income.
13. Gives in detail the duties of post quartermasters under the act.
14. Relates to the duties of assessors and collectors.
 15. Makes trustees, guardians, &c., responsible for taxes due from
estates, &c., under their control.
16. Exempts the income and moneys of hospitals, asylums,
churches, schools, and colleges from taxation under the act.
17. Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to make all rules and
regulations necessary to the operation of the act.
18. Provides that the act shall be in force for two years from the
expiration of the present year, unless sooner repealed; that the tax on
naval stores, flour, wool, cotton, tobacco, and other agricultural
products of the growth of any year preceding 1863, imposed in the
first section, shall be levied and collected only for the present year.
The tax act of February 17, 1864, levies, in addition to the above
rates, the following, as stated in the Richmond Sentinel of February,
1864:
Sec. 1. Upon the value of real, personal, and mixed property, of
every kind and description, except the exemptions hereafter to be
named, five per cent.; the tax levied on property employed in
agriculture to be credited by the value of property in kind.
On gold and silver ware, plate, jewels, and watches, ten per cent.
The tax to be levied on the value of property in 1860, except in the
case of land, slaves, cotton, and tobacco, purchased since January
1st, 1862, upon which the tax shall be levied on the price paid.
Sec. 2. A tax of five per cent. on the value of all shares in joint
stock companies of any kind, whether incorporated or not. The
shares to be valued at their market value at the time of assessment.
Sec. 3. Upon the market value of gold and silver coin or bullion,
five per cent.; also the same upon moneys held abroad, or all bills of
exchange drawn therefor.
A tax of five per cent. on all solvent credits, and on all bank bills
and papers used as currency, except non-interest-bearing
Confederate Treasury notes, and not employed in a registered
business taxed twenty-five per cent.
Sec. 4. Profits in trade and business taxed as follows:
On the purchase and sale of agricultural products and mercantile
wares generally, from January 1, 1863, to January 1, 1865, ten per
cent. in addition to the tax under the act of April 24, 1863.
 The same on the purchase and sale of coin, exchange, stocks,
notes, and credits of any kind, and any property not included in the
foregoing.
On the amount of profits exceeding twenty-five per cent. of any
bank, banking company, or joint stock company of any description,
incorporated or not, twenty-five per cent. on such excess.
Sec. 5. The following are exempted from taxation.
Five hundred dollars’ worth of property for each head of a family,
and a hundred dollars additional for each minor child; and for each
son in the army or navy, or who has fallen in the service, and a
member of the family when he enlisted, the further sum of $500.
One thousand dollars of the property of the widow or minor
children of any officer, soldier, sailor, or marine, who has died in the
service.
A like amount of property of any officer, soldier, sailor, or marine,
engaged in the service, or who has been disabled therein, provided
said property, exclusive of furniture, does not exceed in value
$1,000.
When property has been injured or destroyed by the enemy, or the
owner unable temporarily to use or occupy it by reason of the
presence or proximity of the enemy, the assessment may be reduced
in proportion to the damage sustained by the owner, and the tax in
the same ratio by the district collector.
Sec. 6. The taxes on property for 1864 to be assessed as on the day
of the passage of this act, and collected the 1st of June next, with
ninety days extension west of the Mississippi. The additional tax on
incomes or profits for 1863, to be paid forthwith; the tax on incomes,
&c., for 1864, to be collected according to the acts of 1863.
Sec. 7. Exempts from tax on income for 1864, all property herein
taxed ad valorem. The tax on Confederate bonds in no case to exceed
the interest payable on the same; and said bonds exempt from tax
when held by minors or lunatics, if the interest do not exceed one
thousand dollars.

THE TAX LAW.

 We learn that, according to the construction of the recent tax law
in the Treasury Department, tax payers will be required to state the
articles and objects subjected to a specific or ad valorem tax, held,
owned, or possessed by them on the 17th day of February, 1864, the
date of the act.
The daily wages of detailed soldiers and other employés of the
Government are not liable to taxation as income, although they may
amount, in the aggregate, to the sum of $1,000 per annum.
A tax additional to both the above was imposed as follows, June 1,
1864:

A bill to provide supplies for the army, and to prescribe the mode
of making impressments.
Sec. 1. The Congress of the Confederate States of America do
enact, Every person required to pay a tax in kind, under the
provisions of the “Act to lay taxes for the common defense and carry
on the Government of the Confederate States,” approved April 24,
1863, and the act amendatory thereof, approved February 17, 1864,
shall, in addition to the one tenth required by said acts to be paid as a
tax in kind, deliver to the Confederate Government, of the products
of the present year and of the year 1865, one other tenth of the
several products taxed in kind by the acts aforesaid, which additional
one tenth shall be ascertained, assessed and collected, in all respects,
as is provided by law for the said tax in kind, and shall be paid for, on
delivery, by the Post-Quartermasters in the several districts at the
assessed value thereof, except that payment for cotton and tobacco
shall be made by the agents of the Treasury Department appointed to
receive the same.
Sec. 2. The supplies necessary to the support of the producer and
his family, and to carry on his ordinary business, shall be exempted
from the contribution required by the preceding section, and from
the additional impressments authorized by the act: Provided,
however, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to repeal
or affect the provisions of an act entitled “An act to authorize the
impressment of meat for the use of the army, under certain
circumstances,” approved Feb. 17, 1864, and if the amount of any
article or product so necessary cannot be agreed upon between the
assessor and the producer, it shall be ascertained and determined by
disinterested freeholders of the vicinage, as is provided in cases of
disagreement as to the estimates and assessments of tax in kind. If
required by the assessor, such freeholder shall ascertain whether a
producer, who is found unable to furnish the additional one tenth of
any one product, cannot supply the deficiency by the delivery of an
equivalent in other products, and upon what terms such
commutation shall be made. Any commutation thus awarded shall be
enforced and collected, in all respects, as is provided for any other
contribution required by this act.
Sec. 3. The Secretary of War may, at his discretion, decline to
assess, or, after assessment, may decline to collect the whole or any
part of the additional one tenth herein provided for, in any district or
locality; and it shall be his duty promptly to give notice of any such
determination, specifying, with reasonable certainty, the district or
locality and the product, or the proportion thereof, as to which he so
declines.
Sec. 4. The products received for the contribution herein required,
shall be disposed of and accounted for in the same manner as those
received for the tax in kind; and the Secretary of War may, whenever
the exigencies of the public service will allow, authorize the sale of
products received from either source, to public officers or agents
charged in any State with the duty of providing for the families of
soldiers. Such sale shall be at the prices paid or assessed for the
products sold, including the actual cost of collections.
Sec. 5. If, in addition to the tax in kind and the contribution herein
required, the necessities of the army or the good of the service shall
require other supplies of food or forage, or any other private
property, and the same cannot be procured by contract, then
impressments may be made of such supplies or other property,
either for absolute ownership or for temporary use, as the public
necessities may require. Such impressments shall be made in
accordance with the provisions, and subject to the restrictions of the
existing impressment laws, except so far as is herein otherwise
provided.
Sec. 6. The right and the duty of making impressments is hereby
confided exclusively to the officers and agents charged in the several
districts with the assessment and collection of the tax in kind and of
the contribution herein required; and all officers and soldiers in any
department of the army are hereby expressly prohibited from
undertaking in any manner to interfere with these officers and
agents in any part of their duties in respect to the tax in kind, the
contribution, or the impressment herein provided for: Provided,
That this prohibition shall not be applicable to any district, county,
or parish in which there shall be no officer or agent charged with the
appointment and collection of the tax in kind.
Sec. 7. Supplies or other property taken by impressment shall be
paid for by the post quartermasters in the several districts, and shall
be disposed of and accounted for by them as is required in respect to
the tax in kind and the contribution herein required; and it shall be
the duty of the post quartermasters to equalize and apportion the
impressments within their districts, as far as practicable, so as to
avoid oppressing any portion of the community.
Sec. 8. If any one not authorized by law to collect the tax in kind or
the contribution herein required, or to make impressments, shall
undertake, on any pretence of such authority, to seize or impress, or
to collect or receive any such property, or shall, on any such
pretence, actually obtain such property, he shall, upon conviction
thereof, be punished by fine not exceeding five times the value of
such property, and be imprisoned not exceeding five years, at the
discretion of the court having jurisdiction. And it shall be the duty of
all officers and agents charged with the assessment and collection of
the tax in kind and of the contribution herein required, promptly to
report, through the post quartermasters in the several districts, any
violation or disregard of the provisions of this act by any officer or
soldier in the service of the Confederate States.
Sec. 9. That it shall not be lawful to impress any sheep, milch
cows, brood mares, stud horses, jacks, bulls, or other stock kept or
necessary for raising horses, mules, or cattle.
The following is the vote by which the bill passed the Senate:
Yeas—Messrs. Caperton, Graham, Haynes, Jemison, Johnson
(Ark.), Johnson (Mo.), Mitchell, Orr, Walker, Watson—10.
Nays—Messrs. Baker, Burnett, Henry, Hunter, Maxwell, Semmes,
Sparrow—7.
 Admitting West Virginia.

An important political movement in the early years of the war was

the separation of West Virginia from the mother State, which had
seceded, and her admission into the Union.

SECOND SESSION, THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS.

In Senate, 1862, July 14.—The bill providing for the admission of

the State of West Virginia into the Union, passed—yeas 23, nays 17,
as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Fessenden, Foot, Foster,
Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of
Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Rice, Sherman, Simmons, Ten Eyck,
Wade, Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson of Massachusetts—23.
Nays—Messrs. Bayard, Browning, Carlile, Chandler, Cowan,
Davis, Howard, Kennedy, King, McDougal, Powell, Saulsbury,
Stark, Sumner, Trumbull, Wilson of Missouri, Wright—17.
During the pendency of this bill, July 14, 1862, Mr. Sumner moved
to strike from the first section of the second article the words: “the
children of all slaves born within the limits of said State shall be
free,” and insert:
Within the limits of the said State there shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of crimes
whereof the party shall be duly convicted.
Which was rejected—yeas 11, nays 24, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Grimes, King, Lane of Kansas,
Pomeroy, Sumner, Trumbull, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson, of
Massachusetts—11.
 Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Browning, Carlile, Collamer,
Doolittle, Foot, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Howe, Kennedy, Lane of
Indiana, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, Sherman, Simmons, Stark, Ten
Eyck, Wade, Wiley, Wilson of Missouri, Wright—24.
Mr. Willey proposed to strike out all after the word “That” in the
first section, and insert:
That the State of West Virginia be, and is hereby, declared to be
one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on
an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and
until the next general census shall be entitled to three members in
the House of Representatives of the United States: Provided always,
That this act shall not take effect until after the proclamation of the
President of the United States hereinafter provided for.
Sec. 2. It being represented to Congress that since the convention
of the 26th of November, 1861, that framed and proposed the
constitution for the said State of West Virginia, the people thereof
have expressed a wish to change the seventh section of the eleventh
article of said constitution by striking out the same, and inserting the
following in its place, namely, “The children of slaves born within the
limits of this State after the 4th day of July, 1863, shall be free, and
no slave shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent
residence therein:” therefore,
Be it further enacted, That whenever the people of West Virginia
shall, through their said convention, and by a vote to be taken at an
election to be held within the limits of the State at such time as the
convention may provide, make and ratify the change aforesaid and
properly certify the same under the hand of the president of the
convention, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to
issue his proclamation stating the fact, and thereupon this act shall
take effect and be in force from and after sixty days from the date of
said proclamation.
Mr. Lane of Kansas moved to amend the amendment by inserting
after the word “Herein,” and before the word, “Therefore” the words:
And that all slaves within the said State who shall at the time
aforesaid be under the age of ten years shall be free when they arrive
at the age of twenty-one years; and all slaves over ten and under
twenty-one years shall be free when they arrive at the age of twenty-
five years.
Which was agreed to—yeas 25, nays 12, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Doolittle, Foot, Foster,
Grimes, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Lane
of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck,
Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson, of Massachusetts—25.
Nays—Messrs. Browning, Carlile, Davis, Henderson, Kennedy,
McDougall, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Willey, Wilson of Missouri,
Wright—12.
The amendment as amended was then agreed to.
A motion to postpone the bill to the first Monday of the next
December was lost—yeas 17, nays 23.
In House, July 16—The bill was postponed until the second
Tuesday of the next December—yeas 63, nays 33.

THIRD SESSION, THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS.

1863, Dec. 10, the House passed the bill—yeas 96, nays 57.
1863, April 20, the President issued a proclamation announcing
the compliance, by West Virginia, of the conditions of admission.
 COLOR IN WAR POLITICS.

Emancipation and its attendant agitations brought to the front a

new class of political questions, which can best be grouped under the
above caption. The following is a summary of the legislation:
 Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

To Remove Disqualification of Color in Carrying the Mails.

In Senate, 1862, April 11—The Senate considered a bill “to remove
all disqualification of color in carrying the mails of the United
States.” It directed that after the passage of the act no person, by
reason of color, shall be disqualified from employment in carrying
the mails, and all acts and parts of acts establishing such
disqualification, including especially the seventh section of the act of
March 3, 1825, are hereby repealed.
The vote in the Senate was, yeas 24, nays 11, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Howard,
Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons,
Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson of Massachusetts—24.
Nays—Messrs. Davis, Henderson, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana,
Latham, Nesmith, Powell, Stark, Willey, Wilson of Missouri, Wright
—11.[25]
In House, May 21—It was considered in the House and laid on the
table—yeas 83, nays 43.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

1864, February 26—The Senate considered the bill—the question

being on agreeing to a new section proposed by the Committee on
Post Offices and Post Roads—as follows:
Sec. 2. That in the courts of the United States there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Mr. Powell moved to amend by inserting after the word “States”
the words: “in all cases for robbing or violating the mails of the
United States.”
No further progress was made on the bill.

NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN MONTANA TERRITORY.

1864, March 18—The House passed, without a division, a bill in

the usual form, to provide a temporary government for the Territory
of Montana.
March 31—The Senate considered it, when Mr. Wilkinson moved
to strike from the second line of the fifth section, (defining the
qualifications of voters,) the words “white male inhabitant” and
insert the words: “male citizen of the United States, and those who
have declared their intention to become such;” which was agreed to—
yeas 22, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Dixon,
Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howard,
Howe, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson
—22.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Harding,
Henderson, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Powell, Riddle,
Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—17.
 The bill was then passed—yeas 29, nays 8, (Messrs. Buckalew,
Davis, Johnson, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle, Willey.)
April 15—The Senate adopted the report of the Committee of
Conference on the Montana bill, which recommended the Senate to
recede from their second amendment, and the House to agree to the
first and third amendments of the Senate, (including the above.)
April 15—Mr. Beaman presented the report of the Committee of
Conference on the Montana bill, a feature of which was that the
House should recede from its disagreement to the Senate
amendment striking out the word “white” in the description of those
authorized to vote.
Mr. Holman moved that the report be tabled; which was lost by the
casting vote of the Speaker—yeas 66, nays 66.
Upon agreeing to the report the yeas were 54, nays 85.
On motion to adhere to its amendments, and ask another
Committee of Conference, Mr. Webster moved instructions:
And that said committee be instructed to agree to no report that
authorizes any other than free white male citizens, and those who
have declared their intention to become such, to vote.
Which was agreed to—yeas 75, nays 67.
April 15—The Senate declined the conference upon the terms
proposed by the House resolution of that day.
April 18—The House proposed a further free conference, to which,
April 25, the Senate acceded.
May 17—In Senate, Mr. Morrill submitted a report from the
Conference Committee who recommend that qualified voters shall
be:
All citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their
intention to become such, and who are otherwise described and
qualified under the fifth section of the act of Congress providing for a
temporary government for the Territory of Idaho approved March 3,
1863.
The report was concurred in—yeas 26, nays 13.
May 20—The above report was made by Mr. Webster in the House,
and agreed to—yeas 102, nays 26.
 IN WASHINGTON CITY.[26]

1864, May 6—The Senate considered the bill for the registration of
voters in the city of Washington, when
Mr. Cowan moved to insert the word “white” in the first section, so
as to confine the right of voting to white male citizens.
May 12—Mr. Morrill moved to amend the amendment by striking
out the words—
And shall have paid all school taxes and all taxes on personal
property properly assessed against him, shall be entitled to vote for
mayor, collector, register, members of the board of aldermen and
board of common council, and assessor, and for every officer
authorized to be elected at any election under any act or acts to
which this is amendatory or supplementary, and inserting the words
—
And shall within the year next preceding the election have paid a
tax, or been assessed with a part of the revenue of the District,
county, or cities, therein, or been exempt from taxation having
taxable estate, and who can read and write with facility, shall enjoy
the privileges of an elector.
May 26—Mr. Sumner moved to amend the bill by adding this
proviso:
Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any person from the
registry on account of color.
May 27—Mr. Harlan moved to amend the amendment by making
the word “person” read “persons,” and adding the words—
Who have borne arms in the military service of the United States,
and have been honorably discharged therefrom.
Which was agreed to yeas 26, nays 12, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conness,
Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris,
Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill,
Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Willey,
Wilson—26.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Hendricks,
McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Sumner, Van Winkle,
Wilkinson—12.
May 28—Mr. Sumner moved to add these words to the last
proviso:
And provided further, That all persons, without distinction of
color, who shall, within the year next preceding the election, have
paid a tax on any estate, or been assessed with a part of the revenue
of said District, or been exempt from taxation having taxable estate,
and who can read and write with facility, shall enjoy the privilege of
an elector. But no person now entitled to vote in the said District,
continuing to reside therein, shall be disfranchised hereby.
Which was rejected—yeas 8, nays 27, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sumner, Wilkinson—8.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon,
Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Hendricks,
Hicks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morrill, Powell,
Saulsbury, Sherman. Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey,
Wilson—27.
The other proposition of Mr. Sumner, amended on motion of Mr.
Harlan, was then rejected—yeas 18, nays 20, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Foot, Foster,
Hale, Harlan, Howard, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sherman, Sumner, Wilkinson, Wilson—18.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Grimes, Harris,
Hendricks, Hicks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morrill,
Nesmith, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van
Winkle, Willey—20.
The bill then passed the Senate, and afterward the House, without
amendment.