Agency Fields in the Sphere of Art: Actors, Environments of Manifestation, and Formation Factors

Agency Fields in the Sphere of Art:
Actors, Environments of Manifestation, and Formation Factors


Sorokin P.S.

Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Associate Professor, Leading Research Fellow, Head of the Laboratory for Human Capital and Education Research, Institute of Education, HSE University, Moscow, Russia psorokin@hse.ru

Afanaseva I.A.

PhD student, researcher, Laboratory for Human Capital and Education Research, HSE University, Moscow, Russia. iaafanaseva@hse.ru

ID of the Article:


The study was prepared within the framework of a grant provided by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation No.: 075-15-2022-325.

Rubric: Sociology of culture

For citation:

Sorokin P.S., Afanaseva I.A. Agency Fields in the Sphere of Art: Actors, Environments of Manifestation, and Formation Factors. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2024. No 10. P. 129-138



Abstract

Insufficient understanding of the driving forces and mechanisms of proactive human influence on the social environment has recently been discussed as one of the key problems for fundamental science and practical politics. One of the key concepts in scientific discussions is agency. The field of art, as both a medium of manifestation and a factor in the formation of agency, receives limited attention, despite the fact that historically it occupies an important place in the developments on the problems of structural dynamics (for example, in the works of P. Bourdieu, B. Latour). Based on theoretical analysis, a review of discussions in the field of contemporary art, as well as on the basis of five interviews with contemporary artists, this article puts forward and substantiates the hypothesis about the existence of “fields of agency” as a special type of social formations, resulting not so much from change or development through individual action of existing structures, but from the direct creation of new practices of action and communities, which in turn change the wider environment. This hypothesis is considered as a development of the concept of strategic action fields by N. Fligsteen and D. McAdam, as well as a clarification of the neostructuration concept (de-structuration) previously put forward by one of the authors of this article. The authors conclude that the formation of fields of agency may be an important mechanism through which individual action can transform the social world and which has not been sufficiently studied in contemporary social theory.


Keywords
contemporary art; agency; independence; neo-structuration; field theory; fields of agency; strategic action; self-organization

References

Afanaseva I. A. (2022) Language Generation: Word in Contemporary Russian Art. Chelovek [Person]. Vol. 33. No. 6: 136–155. DOI: 10.31857/S023620070023384-9. (In Russ.)

Afanaseva I. A., Sorokin P. S., Goloshchapov A. A. (2024) Agency in contemporary European art (2017–2023) in the context of social and cultural trends: Manifestations and effects. Shagi/Steps. Vol. 10. No. 1: 341–362. DOI: 10.22394/2412-9410-2024-10-1-341-362. (In Russ.)

Allakhverdiev T. (2023) Floating Institutionality and Para- Institutions in Contemporary Russian Art: Premises and Forms. Kommunikacii. Media. Dizain [Communications. Media. Design]. Vol. 8. No. 1: 144–155. (In Russ.)

Archer M. S. (2024) Can Complexity add anything to Critical Realism and the Morphogenetic Approach? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. No.??: 1–12. DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12419.

Cavazzoni F., Fiorini A., Veronese G. (2021) How do we assess how agentic we are? A literature review of existing instruments to evaluate and measure individuals’ agency. Social Indicators Research. No. 59: 1125–1153.

Dow R., Warran K. et al. (2023) The arts in public health policy: progress and opportunities. The Lancet Public Health. No. 8(2): 155–160. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00313-9.

Dwivedi Y. K., Sharma A. et al. (2023) Evolution of artificial intelligence research in Technological Forecasting and Social Change: Research topics, trends, and future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. No. 192. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122579.

Fligstein N., McAdam D. (2011) Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological theory. No. 29(1): 1–26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.x.

Fligstein N., McAdam D. (2022) Theory of Fields. Moscow: VSHE. (In Russ.)

Furuta J., Meyer, J.W., Bromley P. (2023) Education in a Postliberal World Society. The Oxford Handbook of Education and Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garcia A. (2017) The Walls of Wynwood: Art and Change in the Global Neighborhood. Diss. Princeton University.

Kokoshin A. A. (2015) War and Art of War: Politological and Sociological Dimensions. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 3: 97–106. (In Russ.)

Kolycheva V. A. (2010) The Art of Art Assessing: Results of A Survey in The Saint Petersburg Artistic in Community. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 11: 100–109. DOI: 10.31857/S0132162500074519. (In Russ.)

Kuleva M. (2020) Sociological discoveries of “open systems”. In: Open Systems: Self- Organized Art Initiatives in Russia, 2000–2020. Moscow: MSI “Garazh”: 26–33. (In Russ.)

Mironenko I. A., Sorokin P. S. (2020) Activity Theory for the De- Structuralized Modernity. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. No. 56: 1055–1071. DOI: 10.1007/s12124-020-09587-4.

Parker J. N., Corte U. (2017) Placing Collaborative Circles in Strategic Action Fields: Explaining Differences between Highly Creative Groups. Sociological Theory. No. 35(4): 261–287. DOI: 10.1177/0735275117740400.

Polanin R. (2020) Self-organizing, or Reassembling Self-organization. In: Open Systems: Self- Organized Art Initiatives in Russia, 2000–2020. Moscow: MSI “Garazh”: 40–47. (In Russ.)

Seidel M. F. (2016) Contemporary art: art and life. Multidisciplinary Core Scientific knowledge magazine. Vol. 7: 52–62.

Sorokin P. A., Golovin N. A. (2023) Experiments in Sociology. On the Degree of Expression of Some Features of Solidarity (Altruism) in Deed and in Word in Relation to Social Distance. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 1: 93–98. (In Russ.)

Sorokin P. S. (2020) The Promise of John W. Meyer’s World Society Theory: “Otherhood” through the Prism of Pitirim A. Sorokin’s Integralism. The American Sociologist. Vol. 51. No. 4: 506-525. DOI: 10.1007/s12108-020-09468-8.

Sorokin P. S. (2021) Sociological Theory: Challenges and Opportunities for Russian Sociology. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 11: 12–23. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250017006-9.  (In Russ.)

Sorokin P. S. (2023) The Problem of “Agency” Through the Prism of a New Reality: Conditions and Perspectives. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 3: 103–114. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250022927-2. (In Russ.)

Sorokin P. S., Afanaseva I. A., Goloshchapov A. A. (2024) Art and Agency in the Era of De- Structuration: Exploring a New Field. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. Vol. 58: 204–220. DOI: 10.1007/ s12124-023-09777-w.

Trubitsyna A. Project Experience. In: Open Systems: Self- Organized Art Initiatives in Russia, 2000–2020. Moscow: MSI “Garazh”: 8–25. (In Russ.)

Virno P. (2013) Grammar of the set. To the analysis of forms of modern life. Moscow: Ad Marginem. (In Russ.)

Content No 10, 2024